A Case Study from the Past: “The RGC-5 vs. the 661W Cell Line: Similarities, Differences and Contradictions—Are They Really the Same?”

Abstract

In the pursuit of identifying the underlying pathways of ocular diseases, the use of cell lines such as (retinal ganglion cell-5) RGC-5 and 661W became a valuable tool, including pathologies like retinal degeneration and glaucoma. In 2001, the establishment of the RGC-5 cell line marked a significant breakthrough in glaucoma research. Over time, however, concerns arose about the true nature of RGC-5 cells, with conflicting findings in the literature regarding their identity as retinal ganglion cells or photoreceptor-like cells. This study aimed to address the controversy surrounding the RGC-5 cell line’s origin and properties by comparing it with the 661W cell line, a known cone photoreceptor model. Both cell lines were differentiated according to two prior published redifferentiation protocols under the same conditions using 500 nM of trichostatin A (TSA) and investigated for their morphological and neuronal marker properties. The results demonstrated that both cell lines are murine, and they exhibited distinct morphological and neuronal marker properties. Notably, the RGC-5 cells showed higher expression of the neuronal marker β-III tubulin and increased Thy-1-mRNA compared with the 661W cells, providing evidence of their different properties. The findings emphasize the importance of verifying the authenticity of cell lines used in ocular research and highlight the risks of contamination and altered cell properties.

Stress granule induction in rat retinas damaged by constant LED light

“…Our search yielded only one account of G3BP1-containing cytoplasmic granules in the rat retinal ganglion cell line RGC-5 37 . Notably, uncertainties persist concerning the origin and nature of this cell line [38][39][40][41] . Although SGs have been identified in cultured retinal pigment epithelium cells 42 , our study constitutes the inaugural documentation of SGs in the retina and their response to a environmental stimulus, such as light.…”