4.0 Article

Morphologically and karyotypically atypical cells of 'normal' human bronchial epithelial cell line (Beas-2B)

期刊

ULTRASTRUCTURAL PATHOLOGY
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/01913123.2023.2262561

关键词

Bronchial; cell line; epithelial cell; human; microscopy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Beas-2B cell line, which is used as a model in toxicology and cancer transformation experiments, was found to contain atypical cells with abnormal karyotypes. These findings indicate that the Beas-2B cell line is no longer a normal cell line and should be used with caution in future experiments.
Beas-2B is an adenovirus 12-SV40-transfected cell line of normal human bronchial epithelial cells. This cell line was able to replace normal human bronchial epithelial cells, which are currently unavailable, and served as a model for related studies in numerous toxicology and cancer transformation experiments. In any experiment involving toxins or carcinogens, the basic morphology of Beas-2B should be well characterized prior to exposure, but this has never been properly reported. In this study, atypical cells of the Beas-2B cell line in early passage culture were observed using light and electron microscopy, and the cells were further investigated for abnormal karyotypes by flow cytometry. This Beas-2B cell line could be morphologically categorized into two cell types, A and B. Type A contains a large nucleus and abundant cytoplasm (type A > 95%) and type B contains a small nucleus with dense and scarce cytoplasm (type B < 5%). Both atypical cell types had atypical and multilobed/multinucleated cells, including a high percentage (>30%) of mitotic figures, and were Ki-67 positive (100%). Karyotyping also revealed that 40.4% of the cells had atypical karyotyped chromosomes. In light of these findings, this cell line is no longer a normal cell, and experiments performed using this cell line can be questioned for non-default results. Experimenters should consider this error in future experiments.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据