Conclusions
Although Mel285 and Mel290 have copy number alterations that fit UM, multi-omics analyses show that they belong to a separate group compared to the other analyzed UM cell lines. Therefore, they may not be representative models to test potential therapeutic targets for UM.
Methods
We studied protein and mRNA expression of 14 UM cell lines and determined the presence of single nucleotide variants and small insertions and deletions with next-generation sequencing and copy number alterations with a single nucleotide polymorphism array. The lists of differentially expressed proteins and genes were merged, and shared lists were created, keeping only terms with concordant mRNA and protein expression. Enrichment analyses were performed on the shared lists.
Purpose
Cell lines are being used in preclinical uveal melanoma (UM) research. Because not all cell lines harbor typical GNAQ or GNA11 hotspot mutations, we aimed at better classifying them and determining whether we could find genetic causes to explain the protein and mRNA expression profiles of the cell lines.
Results
Cell lines Mel285 and Mel290 are separate from GNA-mutated cell lines and show downregulation of melanosome-related markers. Both lack typical UM mutations but each harbors four putatively deleterious variants in CTNNB1, PPP1R10, LIMCH1, and APC in Mel285 and ARID1A, PPP1R10, SPG11, and RNF43 in Mel290. The upregulated terms in Mel285 and Mel290 did not point to a convincing alternative origin. Mel285 shows loss of chromosomes 1p, 3p, partial 3q, 6, and partial 8p, whereas Mel290 shows loss of 1p and 6. Expression in the other 12 cell lines was related to BAP1 expression. Conclusions: Although Mel285 and Mel290 have copy number alterations that fit UM, multi-omics analyses show that they belong to a separate group compared to the other analyzed UM cell lines. Therefore, they may not be representative models to test potential therapeutic targets for UM.