Genomic, Proteomic and Phenotypic Heterogeneity in HeLa Cells across Laboratories: Implications for Reproducibility of Research Results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The independent reproduction of research results is a cornerstone of experimental research, yet it is beset by numerous challenges, including the quality and veracity of reagents and materials. Much of life science research depends on life materials, including human tissue culture cells. In this study we aimed at determining the degree of variability in the molecular makeup and the ensuing phenotypic consequences in commonly used human tissue culture cells. We collected 14 stock HeLa aliquots from 13 different laboratories across the globe, cultured them in uniform conditions and profiled the genome-wide copy numbers, mRNAs, proteins and protein turnover rates via genomic techniques and SWATH mass spectrometry, respectively. We also phenotyped each cell line with respect to the ability of transfected Let7 mimics to modulate Salmonella infection. We discovered significant heterogeneity between HeLa variants, especially between lines of the CCL2 and Kyoto variety. We also observed progressive divergence within a specific cell line over 50 successive passages. From the aggregate multi-omic datasets we quantified the response of the cells to genomic variability across the transcriptome and proteome. We discovered organelle-specific proteome remodeling and buffering of protein abundance by protein complex stoichiometry, mediated by the adaptation of protein turnover rates. By associating quantitative proteotype and phenotype measurements we identified protein patterns that explained the varying response of the different cell lines to Salmonella infection. Altogether the results indicate a striking degree of genomic variability, the rapid evolution of genomic variability in culture and its complex translation into distinctive expressed molecular and phenotypic patterns. The results have broad implications for the interpretation and reproducibility of research results obtained from HeLa cells and provide important basis for a general discussion of the value and requirements for communicating research results obtained from human tissue culture cells.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.027 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".