Choosing solid tumour models for the property the experiment turns on: why a du145 cell line and a 22rv1 cell line represent different hormone-response states, how a renal pair of a 786-o cell line and an a498 cell line is chosen on a single pathway, why an a2780 cell line is bought with its resistant derivative in mind and an id8 cell line for an immunocompetent host, what an a375 cell line offers a driver-mutation experiment, where a u251 cell line whose u251 cells are the common glioma workhorse sits beside an ht1080 cell line whose ht1080 cells are the standard matrix-degradation model, and what ht22 cells and a pc12 cell line model that is not a tumour at all, plus the lines and alleles searched for by their bare designations: gl261 as an immunocompetent glioma model, ovcar3 among the ovarian panel, u-251 mg as the fuller name of the glioma workhorse, and creert2 as the inducible recombinase allele that makes a conditional experiment possible
Outside the best-characterised tissues, a solid tumour line is usually chosen for one property: a pathway that is constitutively on, a hormone response that is present or lost, a driver mutation, or an ability to invade a matrix. Choosing on that property, and saying so, is what separates a model from a convenience, and it also decides which controls the experiment needs.
- the authentication expected of key biological resources
- NIH rigor
- the guidance on deriving and characterising a cell substrate
- Q5D
- good laboratory practice for nonclinical studies, 21 CFR
- Part 58
The figures in this panel are regulation and standard identifiers, named from the documents themselves and linked below. They are not prices: BioBricks publishes verified prices for synthesis services only, and does not imply a price index it has not measured.
- 4 vendor service pages verifiedevery figure matched verbatim to the vendor's page
- Quoted and dated, never estimatedlast verification pass 2026-08-24
- 1 service classes coveredeach with measured search demand behind it
Choosing on the property, not the tissue
- Identify the single property the experiment turns on. Hormone dependence, a pathway constitutively active through a known lesion, a driver mutation or an invasive phenotype. Name it, then find the line that carries it and the line that does not, because the pair is the experiment and either alone is a description.
- Use derivative pairs where they exist. Many lines have a resistant or selected derivative from the same parent. A parent and derivative differ in far fewer ways than two unrelated lines, so a difference between them is much easier to attribute. Order both together and bank them together.
- Match the host for anything in vivo. A human line needs an immunodeficient host and therefore cannot answer an immune question; a mouse line in a matching strain can. Deciding this before the line is chosen saves the discovery that the planned model cannot address the planned question.
- Confirm the lesion rather than citing it. Mutation and expression status reported for a line decades ago is not always what your stock carries. Where the property is the reason for the choice, confirm it in your own stock once, at a known passage, and record it with the bank.
- Remember which lines are not tumour models. Several familiar lines are neurobiology or differentiation models derived from other tissue entirely, and they are used for a behaviour rather than for a cancer. Describing them as tumour lines misleads the reader about what the experiment was.
Hormone response, and why the pair matters
In hormone-driven cancers the informative comparison is between a line that still responds to the hormone and one that has lost the response, because the question is nearly always about what changes when dependence is lost. A single responsive line answers a smaller question than most projects intend.
Hormone response is also sensitive to the culture medium, since serum carries hormones of its own. Stripped serum, a defined medium and a stated period of hormone deprivation are part of the method, and results obtained in ordinary serum are not comparable with them.
Invasion and matrix models
Lines used to study invasion are chosen because they degrade and move through a matrix in a measurable way. The matrix itself is then part of the model: its composition, its stiffness and its batch all change the result, and batch variation in natural matrices is substantial.
Record the matrix, its batch and its concentration alongside the line. A change in any of the three is a change in the assay, and it is the usual explanation when an invasion result stops reproducing after a new delivery arrives.
Lines that model a process rather than a cancer
Some of the most used lines in neurobiology are tumour-derived but bought for their ability to differentiate into a neuron-like state, or for their sensitivity to an oxidative insult. They model a process and their tumour origin is incidental to the use.
Say what the line is being used as. A reader who assumes a tumour model where a differentiation model was intended draws the wrong conclusion from the same data, and the correction belongs in the methods rather than in a later letter.
Bare designations, and finding the right stock
Many lines are searched for by a bare catalogue designation, and the same cells appear under several spellings with and without suffixes. Those suffixes sometimes denote genuinely different substrains that have diverged in culture, and sometimes they are typographic.
Resolve it at the repository rather than in a search engine: look up the accession, read which names are recorded as synonyms and which as distinct lines, and record the accession in your methods. It is the only identifier that stays stable.
Immunocompetent models in a syngeneic host
A tumour line derived from an inbred mouse strain grows in that strain with an intact immune system, which is the only way to study an immune mechanism against a tumour in vivo. The strain has to match, and a mismatch produces rejection that looks like efficacy.
These models grow far faster than human tumours and have their own immune context, so a result in one is about that model. Using two different models is the usual way to show a mechanism is not a peculiarity of one.
Conditional alleles and the recombinase
A conditional experiment needs a target allele flanked by recognition sites and a recombinase expressed where and when the deletion is wanted. A recombinase fused to a modified receptor domain stays inactive until a small molecule is given, which adds temporal control to the tissue specificity.
Both halves have their own controls: the recombinase alone, to establish that expressing it changes nothing, and the flanked allele alone, to establish that the modification is silent. Reporting a conditional phenotype without both is the standard gap.
Common questions
- Why use a parent and derivative pair?
- Because they differ in far fewer ways than two unrelated lines, so a difference between them can be attributed. Order and bank both together, or the comparison stops being controlled the first time one is replaced.
- Does the culture medium affect hormone response?
- Considerably. Serum carries hormones, so stripped serum, a defined medium and a stated deprivation period are part of the method. Results in ordinary serum are not comparable with results in stripped serum.
- Why do invasion results stop reproducing?
- Most often because the matrix batch changed. Natural matrices vary substantially between lots, so record the matrix, its batch and its concentration with the line and treat a new lot as a change in the assay.
- How do I know which stock a bare designation refers to?
- Resolve it at the repository: look up the accession, read which names are recorded as synonyms and which as distinct substrains, and record the accession in your methods.
- What controls does a conditional deletion need?
- The recombinase alone, to show expressing it changes nothing, and the flanked allele alone, to show the modification is silent. Reporting the phenotype without both leaves the obvious question open.
Get a shortlist for your project
Browse by service class
Sources
Cite or embed this figure
The median advertised gene synthesis price per base pair in the US research synthesis services market was $0.11 in August 2026, across 4 verified vendor service pages recorded in BioBricks Synthesis Price Index.
Cite as: "BioBricks Synthesis Price Index", updated 2026-08-24, https://biobricks.org/solid-tumour-cell-lines/.