COS-1 cells wanted
rhaun at nih.gov
Wed Mar 15 09:58:31 EST 1995
In article <1995Mar14.223310.17489 at alw.nih.gov> bernard at elsie.nci.nih.gov (Bernard Murray) writes:
>From: bernard at elsie.nci.nih.gov (Bernard Murray)
>Subject: Re: COS-1 cells wanted
>Message-ID: <1995Mar14.223310.17489 at alw.nih.gov>
>Summary: What is the difference (*facts* please)?
>Keywords: COS-1 cells
>Sender: postman at alw.nih.gov (AMDS Postmaster)
>Organization: National Institutes of Health
>References: <3jhi33$95h at amcnix.amc.uva.nl>
>Date: Tue, 14 Mar 1995 22:33:10 GMT
>I was interested to read of the posts concerning the use of COS-1 vs COS-7
>cells. A colleague of mine who "was there when COS cells were made" assures
>me that, at least at the outset, there was only one line (COS-1) and that
>COS-7 originated as a typo brought about by someone who used a large serif
>on their figure 1. I realise that the line(s) have been about for some
>time and so artificial differences could arise so, what is the popular
>or personal perception of differences between COS-1 and "COS-7"?
>Does anyone have any hard data (rather than "ease of transfection" or
>growth rates etc.)? Maybe this is a case of literary, rather than genetic,
>Bernard Murray, Ph.D.
>bernard at elsie.nci.nih.gov (National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda MD, USA)
The reference I have always used for the "COS" cell lines is:
Gluzman Y., "SV40-Transformed Simian Cells Support the Replication of Early
SV40 Mutants", Cell 23 (1981) 175-182
In this paper the author reports the establishment of three "COS" cell
lines, namely COS-1, COS-3, and COS-7, that were "obtained by transformation
of CV-1 cells with an origin-defective mutant SV40".
As all three cell lines appear to have been established after transformation
with the same origin-defective mutant SV40, it is not clear why a laboratory
would be prohibited from using one particular cell line and not one of the
others (as indicated in the original post).
More information about the Methods