Cross-contamination between cell lines is a longstanding and frequent cause of scientific misrepresentation. Estimates from national testing services indicate that up to 36% of cell lines are of a different origin or species to that claimed. To test a standard method of cell line authentication, 253 human cell lines from banks and research institutes worldwide were analyzed by short tandem repeat profiling. The short tandem repeat profile is a simple numerical code that is reproducible between laboratories, is inexpensive, and can provide an international reference standard for every cell line. If DNA profiling of cell lines is accepted and demanded internationally, scientific misrepresentation because of cross-contamination can be largely eliminated.

Continuous cell lines consist of cultured cells derived from a specific donor and tissue of origin that have acquired the ability to proliferate indefinitely. These cell lines are well‐recognized models for the study of health and disease, particularly for cancer. However, there are cautions to be aware of when using continuous cell lines, including the possibility of contamination, in which a foreign cell line or microorganism is introduced without the handler's knowledge. Cross‐contamination, in which the contaminant is another cell line, was first recognized in the 1950s but, disturbingly, remains a serious issue today. Many cell lines become cross‐contaminated early, so that subsequent experimental work has been performed only on the contaminant, masquerading under a different name. What can be done in response—how can a researcher know if their own cell lines are cross‐contaminated? Two practical responses are suggested here. First, it is important to check the literature, looking for previous work on cross‐contamination. Some reports may be difficult to find and to make these more accessible, we have compiled a list of known cross‐contaminated cell lines. The list currently contains 360 cell lines, drawn from 68 references. Most contaminants arise within the same species, with HeLa still the most frequently encountered (29%, 106/360) among human cell lines, but interspecies contaminants account for a small but substantial minority of cases (9%, 33/360). Second, even if there are no previous publications on cross‐contamination for that cell line, it is essential to check the sample itself by performing authentication testing.

Increasing data demonstrate that cellular cross-contamination, misidentified cell lines, and the use of cultures at high-passage levels contribute to the generation of erroneous and misleading results as well as wasted research funds. Contamination of cell lines by other lines has been recognized and documented back to the 1950s. Based on submissions to major cell repositories in the last decade, it is estimated that between 18% and 36% of cell lines may be contaminated or misidentified. More recently, problems surrounding practices of over-subculturing cells are being identified. As a result of selective pressures and genetic drift, cell lines, when kept in culture too long, exhibit reduced or altered key functions and often no longer represent reliable models of their original source material. A review of papers showing significant experimental variances between low- and high-passage cell culture numbers, as well as contaminated lines, makes a strong case for using verified, tested cell lines at low- or defined passage numbers. In the absence of cell culture guidelines, mandates from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and other funding agencies or journal requirements, it becomes the responsibility of the scientific community to perform due diligence to ensure the integrity of cell cultures used in research.

Continuous human cell lines have been used extensively as models for biomedical research. In working with these cell lines, researchers are often unaware of the risk of cross-contamination and other causes of misidentification. To reduce this risk, there is a pressing need to authenticate cell lines, comparing the sample handled in the laboratory to a previously tested sample. The American Type Culture Collection Standards Development Organization Workgroup ASN-0002 has developed a Standard for human cell line authentication, recommending short tandem repeat (STR) profiling for authentication of human cell lines. However, there are known limitations to the technique when applied to cultured samples, including possible genetic drift with passage. In our study, a dataset of 2,279 STR profiles from four cell banks was used to assess the effectiveness of the match criteria recommended within the Standard. Of these 2,279 STR profiles, 1,157 were grouped into sets of related cell linesduplicate holdings, legitimately related samples or misidentified cell lines. Eight core STR loci plus amelogenin were used to unequivocally authenticate 98% of these related sets. Two simple match algorithms each clearly discriminated between related and unrelated samples, with separation between related samples at !80% match and unrelated samples at <50% match. A small degree of overlap was noted at 50-79% match, mostly from cell lines known to display variable STR profiles. These match criteria are recommended as a simple and effective way to interpret results from STR profiling of human cell lines.