The Use of Short Tandem Repeat Analysis for Cell Line Authentication

Short tandem repeat analysis (STR) is a well-established international method of authentication and genetic stability testing of cell lines (CLs). Therefore, the development and introduction of this method into routine practice of cell banks and cell culture collections is a pressing concern. In addition, the expansion of the field of cell-line based biomedical cell products (BСPs) necessitates the implementation of STR as a tool of identification testing during quality control. The State Pharmacopoeia of the Russian Federation does not require mandatory use of STR for cell line identification, while other countries have been using this method for cell line quality control for about a decade. The use of identified CLs in medical practice will ensure the efficacy and safety of BCPs. The aim of the study was to assess the possibility of using STR analysis for authentication and genetic stability testing of CLs using U937, WISH, WIL2-S, NK-92, and Jurkat Clone E6-1 CLs as examples. Materials and me­thods: the following human CLs were used in the study: U937 (ECACC), WISH (ATCC), WIL2S (ATCC), NK-92 (ATCC), and Jurkat Clone E6-1 (ATCC). The CL allelic profiles were determined by STR using the COrDIS Plus kit (Gordiz, Russia). The electrophoretic separation was performed using a Genetic Analyzer 3500 Series instrument. The data provided on the websites of the European Collection of Authenticated Cell Cultures and American Type Culture Collection were used to compare the CL profiles. Results: the AuthentiFiler PCR Amplification Kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific, USA) and the GenePrint 10 System (Promega Corporation, USA) intended for CL authentication by STR were compared with the characteristics of the COrDIS plus kit (Gordiz, Russia). The results of the comparison demonstrated that the COrDIS plus kit includes all the loci found in the foreign kits, as well as the loci recommended by the International Cell Line Authentication Committee. The U-937, WIL2S, and NK-92 CLs demonstrated genetic identity with the reference profiles available on the websites of the international collections. The Jurkat Clone E6-1 CL was found to be genetically instable due to the loss of the amelogenin gene. Conclusions: it was demonstrated by the examples of U937, WISH, WIL2-S, NK-92, and Jurkat Clone E6-1 CLs that STR and the COrDIS plus kit could be used for authentication and genetic stability testing. The obtained results suggest the feasibility of using the COrDIS plus kit for the analysis of CLs used in BCPs, for BCP quality control, and biomedical research.

1. Korch C, Hall EM, Dirks WG, Ewing M, Faries M, Varella-Garcia M, et al. Authentication of M14 melanoma cell line proves misidentification of MDA-MB-435 breast cancer cell line. Int J Cancer. 2018;142(3):561–72. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.31067

2. Rižner TL, Adamski J. It is high time to discontinue use of misidentified and contaminated cells: guidelines for description and authentication of cell lines. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2018;182:1–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsbmb.2017.12.017

3. Lin LC, Elkashty O, Ramamoorthi M, Trinh N, Liu Y, Sunavala-Dossabhoy, et al. Cross-contamination of the human salivary gland HSG cell line with HeLa cells: a STR analysis study. Oral Dis. 2018;24(8):1477–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/odi.12920

4. Rojas A, Gonzalez I. Cell line cross-contamination: a detrimental issue in current biomedical research. Cell Biol Int. 2018;42(3):272. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbin.10904

5. Mrózek K, Tanner SM, Heinonen K, Bloomfield CD. Molecular cytogenetic characterization of the KG-1 and KG-1a acute myeloid leukemia cell lines by use of spectral karyotyping and fluorescence in situ hybridization. Genes, Chromosomes Cancer. 2003;38(3):249–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/gcc.10274

6. Maïga S, Brosseau C, Descamps G, Dousset C, Gomez-Bougie P, Chiron D, et al. A simple flow cytometry-based barcode for routine authentication of multiple myeloma and mantle cell lymphoma cell lines. Cytometry A. 2015;87A(4):285–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/cyto.a.22643

7. Corral-Vázquez C, Aguilar-Quesada R, Catalina P, Lucena-Aguilar G, Ligero G, Miranda B, Carrillo-Ávila JA. Cell lines authentication and mycoplasma detection as minimun quality control of cell lines in biobanking. Cell Tissue Bank. 2017;18(2):271–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10561-017-9617-6

8. Roseti L, Serra M, Canella F, Munno C, Tosi A, Zuntini M, et al. In vitro gene and chromosome characterization of expanded bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells for musculo-skeletal applications. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2014;18(23):3702–11.

9. McLaren RS, Reid Y, Storts DR. Human cell line authentication: the critical first step in any project using human cell lines. In: Heizmann CW, eds. Calcium-binding proteins and RAGE: from structural basics to clinical applications. Methods in Molecular Biology, vol 963. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press; 2013. P. 341–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-62703-230-8_21

10. Alonso A, Barrio PA, Müller P, Köcher S, Berger B, Martin P, et al. Current state-of-art of STR sequencing in forensic genetics. Electrophoresis. 2018;39(21):2655–68. https://doi.org/10.1002/elps.201800030

11. Geng T, Novak R, Mathies RA. Single-cell forensic short tandem repeat typing within microfluidic droplets. Anal Chem. 2014;86(1):703–12. https://doi.org/10.1021/ac403137h

12. Silva SBSD, Sawitzki FR, Scheible MKR, Bailey SF, Alho CS, Faith SA. Paternity testing using massively parallel sequencing and the PowerSeq™ AUTO/Y system for short tandem repeat sequencing. Electrophoresis. 2018;39(21):2669–73. https://doi.org/10.1002/elps.201800072

13. An Q, Fillmore HL, Vouri M, Pilkington GJ. Brain tumor cell line authentication, an efficient alternative to capillary electrophoresis by using a microfluidics-based system. Neuro Oncol. 2014;16(2):265–73. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/not202

14. Melnikova EV, Merkulova OV, Merkulov VA, Olefir YuV, Ruchko SV, Bokovanov VE. Human cell line identification by typing of short tandem repeats: world practice. Biofarmatsevticheskii zhurnal = Russian Journal of Biopharmaceuticals. 2015;7(6):3–10 (In Russ.)

15. Almeida JL, Hill CR, Cole KD. Mouse cell line authentication. Cytotechnology. 2014;66(1):133–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10616-013-9545-7

16. Benabid AL, Delong M, Hariz M. Monkey-based research on human disease: the implications of genetic differences. Altern Lab Anim. 2015;43(3):205–6. https://doi.org/10.1177/026119291504300309

17. Pinaev GP, Polyanskaya GG. Establishment and development of the Russian collection of human, animals and plants cell cultures. In: Cell Cultures. Information Bulletin. Issue 26. St. Petersburg: Izd-vo Politekhn. unta; 2010. P. 3–61 (In Russ.)

18. Melnikova EV, Rachinskaya OA, Trusov GA, Khorolsky MD, Semenova IS, Tereshkina NV, Merkulov VA. Justification of methodological approaches to identification testing of biomedical cell products. BIOpreparaty. Profilaktika, diagnostika, lechenie = BIOpreparations. Prevention, Diagnosis, Treatment. 2019;19(1):28–38 (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.30895/2221-996X-2019-19-1-28-38

19. Huang Y, Liu Y, Zheng C, Shen C. Investigation of crosscontamination and misidentification of 278 widely used tumor cell lines. PLoS One. 2017;12(1):e0170384. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170384