Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40205252›Full record

ReviewIn vitro cellular & developmental biology. Animal2026

Improve your success with fish cell lines-small things that matter.

Anita Solhaug, Georgina C Dowd, Vivian R Dayeh, Hilde Sindre, Lucy E J Lee, Niels C Bols

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in In vitro cellular & developmental biology. Animal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Anita SolhaugNorwegian Veterinary Institute, 1433, Ås, Norway. anita.solhaug@vetinst.no.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1908-406X
Georgina C DowdThe New Zealand Institute for Plant and Food Research Limited, 293 Akersten Street, Nelson, 7010, New Zealand.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1063-0834
Vivian R DayehDepartment of Biology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0802-1669
Hilde SindreNorwegian Veterinary Institute, 1433, Ås, Norway.
Lucy E J LeeFaculty of Science, University of the Fraser Valley, Abbotsford, BC, V2S 7M8, Canada.
Niels C BolsDepartment of Biology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is a drive towards reducing animal experiments and developing robust biologically relevant in vitro models based on cell lines, including those derived from fish. At the time of writing, Cellosaurus, the knowledge base of current cell lines used in research, listed more than 900 fish cell lines in its database. One of the key challenges facing fish cell biology is the lack of fundamental technical information regarding the isolation, culture, and application of cell lines. Researchers often work in silos, encountering similar technical challenges, each spending significant time and resources overcoming the same issues for which solutions may not be readily accessible. Here, we share some of the key considerations for the isolation, culture, maintenance, and application of fish cell lines in toxicology, which we have encountered over our collective decades of experience.

Indexed as

Cell Culture TechniquesFishesAnimalsCell LineCell line developmentFish cell cultureInvitromaticsIn vitro toxicologyPrimary culture

Identifiers

PMID40205252
PMCPMC13053418

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.