COS-1 cells wanted

Randy Haun rhaun at
Wed Mar 15 09:58:31 EST 1995

In article <1995Mar14.223310.17489 at> bernard at (Bernard Murray) writes:
>Newsgroups: bionet.molbio.methds-reagnts
>Path: nih-csl!bernard
>From: bernard at (Bernard Murray)
>Subject: Re: COS-1 cells wanted
>Message-ID: <1995Mar14.223310.17489 at>
>Summary: What is the difference (*facts* please)?
>Keywords: COS-1 cells
>Sender: postman at (AMDS Postmaster)
>Organization: National Institutes of Health
>References: <3jhi33$95h at>
>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,
>mutation.... ;-)
>			Bernard
>Bernard Murray, Ph.D.
>bernard at  (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).

Randy Haun

More information about the Methods mailing list