Widespread Use of Misidentified Cell Line KB (HeLa): Incorrect Attribution and Its Impact Revealed through Mining the Scientific Literature
Widespread Use of Misidentified Cell Line KB (HeLa): Incorrect Attribution and Its Impact Revealed through Mining the Scientific Literature
复制标题
DOI：
10.1158/0008-5472.can-16-2258
复制
发表时间：
2017-06-01
期刊：
影响因子：
11.2
通讯作者：
Capes-Davis, Amanda
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Vaughan, Liwen;Glanzel, Wolfgang;Capes-Davis, Amanda
连续细胞系被广泛使用，但可能导致无效的、不可重现的研究数据。细胞系识别错误是一个常见的问题，可以通过验证测试来检测；然而，被错误识别的细胞系继续在出版物中使用。在这里，我们探索一个被错误识别的细胞系KB(HeLa)对科学文献的影响。我们确定了2000至2014年间574篇文章，根据KB的错误身份为口腔表皮样癌提供了错误的归因，但只有57篇文章提供了Kb的正确归因，如HeLa或宫颈腺癌。对57篇正确文章和171篇错误文章的统计分析表明，这些文章的被引次数随着时间的推移而增加。对200篇引文的内容分析表明，有与引文描述相一致的描述细胞系的趋势。对期刊影响因子的分析表明，正确组和错误组之间没有显著差异。使用知识库或引用该用法的文章最常发表在药理学、药剂学、肿瘤学和药物化学的主题领域。这些发现对科学政策很重要，并支持期刊要求认证测试作为发表条件的必要性。(C)2017年AACR。
Continuous cell lines are widely used, but can result in invalid, irreproducible research data. Cell line misidentification is a common problem that can be detected by authentication testing; however, misidentified cell lines continue to be used in publications. Here we explore the impact of one misidentified cell line, KB (HeLa), on the scientific literature. We identified 574 articles between 2000 and 2014 that provided an incorrect attribution for KB, in accordance with its false identity as oral epidermoid carcinoma, but only 57 articles that provided a correct attribution for KB, as HeLa or cervical adenocarcinoma. Statistical analysis of 57 correct and 171 incorrect articles showed that the number of citations to these articles increased over time. Content analysis of 200 citing articles showed there was a tendency to describe the cell line in accordance with the description in the cited paper. Analysis of journal impact factor showed no significant difference between correct and incorrect groups. Articles using KB or citing that usage were most frequently published in the subject areas of pharmacology, pharmacy, oncology, and medicinal chemistry. These findings are important for science policy and support the need for journals to require authentication testing as a condition of publication. (C) 2017 AACR.