In basic science lab research, many scientists use cells to study a particular disease. For example, since my project deals with understanding some of the molecular mechanisms of colon cancer, I utilize different colon cancer cell lines (such as SW480, HCT116, HT29, etc).
While a cell line should be the same whether it’s in a lab in California or whether it is in NY, I have always had this suspicion that a cell line could be different in two different labs. Why? Well, cells can condition themselves to the environment in which they are growing, and since they are cancer cells, they tend to accumulate random mutations the older they get.
Clearly this would pose a huge problem… a lab can publish an article listing their observations in HT29, which would contradict another lab’s published work in the same cell line. Both observations, even though contradictory, may be accurate.
The above-stated thoughts were not based on hard data, so they were mere gut feelings. This suspicion, however, was unfortunately confirmed in my last PhD committee meeting, when I showed results in HT29 that was contradictory to previously published work. At first, my committee questioned my results…
It turns out, there are two different strains of HT29. While I was glad to learn that my work was accurate, I was saddened, because my fear was confirmed… some results in the lab could be simply artifacts of the the system.
Simple and logical assumptions (assuming that a cell line should be the same) can cause a lot of drama and lost time. It seems rather daunting and overwhelming when the implication here is that scientists need to critically analyze everything… especially when they are pondering complex systems, such as cancer or a cell line.