Faizah Ahmad , Shahrul Aiman Soelar , Mowaffaq Adam Ahmed Adam , Muhammad Radzi Abu Hassan , Muhammad Amir Yunus
{"title":"尿液中MicroRNA的分离:总RNA分离试剂和二氧化硅膜提取方法的比较。","authors":"Faizah Ahmad , Shahrul Aiman Soelar , Mowaffaq Adam Ahmed Adam , Muhammad Radzi Abu Hassan , Muhammad Amir Yunus","doi":"10.1016/j.cca.2025.120396","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>microRNA (miRNA) extraction from urine samples is challenging, especially for sensitive downstream analyses such as quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). While commercial kits are available, their high cost can be prohibitive for repetitive experimental studies. In this context, this study aimed to compare the RNA yield and purity scores of conventional Total RNA Isolation (TRI) reagent-based to silica membrane-based extraction method.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>miRNA was extracted from urine samples using three methods: 1) Silica membrane-based (Method 1); 2) TRI reagent-based (Method 2); and 3) Improvised TRI reagent-based (Method 3). RNA yield and purity score (A260/280 and A260/230) were analysed using one-way repeated measures ANOVA. The relative expression of hsa-miR-21-5p normalized to RNU6B was assessed by RT-qPCR for extracts from Method 1 and 2 to compare the effects of silica membrane-based and TRI reagent-based.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Total RNA yield (<em>p</em>-value = 0.005) and A260/230 (<em>p</em>-value < 0.001) differed significantly between all methods except for the A260/280 (<em>p</em>-value = 0.177). Specifically, higher RNA yield and <em>A</em><sub>260/230</sub> from Method 3 were noted compared to Method 1 (<em>p</em>-value = 0.007 and 0.010) and Method 2 (<em>p</em>-value = 0.046 and 0.009), with A260/230 remaining outside the acceptable range. The total RNA yield, A260/280 and A260/230, is not significantly different between Methods 1 and 2 (<em>p</em>-value = 0.291, 0.566, and 1.000).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>While the purity could be improved, TRI reagent method shows promise as an alternative for high-yield RNA extraction. It is particularly useful for repetitive downstream experiments in research and clinical applications.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":10205,"journal":{"name":"Clinica Chimica Acta","volume":"576 ","pages":"Article 120396"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"MicroRNA isolation from urine: comparison of total RNA isolation (TRI) reagent and silica membrane-based extraction methods\",\"authors\":\"Faizah Ahmad , Shahrul Aiman Soelar , Mowaffaq Adam Ahmed Adam , Muhammad Radzi Abu Hassan , Muhammad Amir Yunus\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cca.2025.120396\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>microRNA (miRNA) extraction from urine samples is challenging, especially for sensitive downstream analyses such as quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). While commercial kits are available, their high cost can be prohibitive for repetitive experimental studies. In this context, this study aimed to compare the RNA yield and purity scores of conventional Total RNA Isolation (TRI) reagent-based to silica membrane-based extraction method.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>miRNA was extracted from urine samples using three methods: 1) Silica membrane-based (Method 1); 2) TRI reagent-based (Method 2); and 3) Improvised TRI reagent-based (Method 3). RNA yield and purity score (A260/280 and A260/230) were analysed using one-way repeated measures ANOVA. The relative expression of hsa-miR-21-5p normalized to RNU6B was assessed by RT-qPCR for extracts from Method 1 and 2 to compare the effects of silica membrane-based and TRI reagent-based.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Total RNA yield (<em>p</em>-value = 0.005) and A260/230 (<em>p</em>-value < 0.001) differed significantly between all methods except for the A260/280 (<em>p</em>-value = 0.177). Specifically, higher RNA yield and <em>A</em><sub>260/230</sub> from Method 3 were noted compared to Method 1 (<em>p</em>-value = 0.007 and 0.010) and Method 2 (<em>p</em>-value = 0.046 and 0.009), with A260/230 remaining outside the acceptable range. The total RNA yield, A260/280 and A260/230, is not significantly different between Methods 1 and 2 (<em>p</em>-value = 0.291, 0.566, and 1.000).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>While the purity could be improved, TRI reagent method shows promise as an alternative for high-yield RNA extraction. It is particularly useful for repetitive downstream experiments in research and clinical applications.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10205,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinica Chimica Acta\",\"volume\":\"576 \",\"pages\":\"Article 120396\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinica Chimica Acta\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000989812500275X\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinica Chimica Acta","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000989812500275X","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
MicroRNA isolation from urine: comparison of total RNA isolation (TRI) reagent and silica membrane-based extraction methods
Background
microRNA (miRNA) extraction from urine samples is challenging, especially for sensitive downstream analyses such as quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). While commercial kits are available, their high cost can be prohibitive for repetitive experimental studies. In this context, this study aimed to compare the RNA yield and purity scores of conventional Total RNA Isolation (TRI) reagent-based to silica membrane-based extraction method.
Methods
miRNA was extracted from urine samples using three methods: 1) Silica membrane-based (Method 1); 2) TRI reagent-based (Method 2); and 3) Improvised TRI reagent-based (Method 3). RNA yield and purity score (A260/280 and A260/230) were analysed using one-way repeated measures ANOVA. The relative expression of hsa-miR-21-5p normalized to RNU6B was assessed by RT-qPCR for extracts from Method 1 and 2 to compare the effects of silica membrane-based and TRI reagent-based.
Results
Total RNA yield (p-value = 0.005) and A260/230 (p-value < 0.001) differed significantly between all methods except for the A260/280 (p-value = 0.177). Specifically, higher RNA yield and A260/230 from Method 3 were noted compared to Method 1 (p-value = 0.007 and 0.010) and Method 2 (p-value = 0.046 and 0.009), with A260/230 remaining outside the acceptable range. The total RNA yield, A260/280 and A260/230, is not significantly different between Methods 1 and 2 (p-value = 0.291, 0.566, and 1.000).
Conclusion
While the purity could be improved, TRI reagent method shows promise as an alternative for high-yield RNA extraction. It is particularly useful for repetitive downstream experiments in research and clinical applications.
期刊介绍:
The Official Journal of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC)
Clinica Chimica Acta is a high-quality journal which publishes original Research Communications in the field of clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine, defined as the diagnostic application of chemistry, biochemistry, immunochemistry, biochemical aspects of hematology, toxicology, and molecular biology to the study of human disease in body fluids and cells.
The objective of the journal is to publish novel information leading to a better understanding of biological mechanisms of human diseases, their prevention, diagnosis, and patient management. Reports of an applied clinical character are also welcome. Papers concerned with normal metabolic processes or with constituents of normal cells or body fluids, such as reports of experimental or clinical studies in animals, are only considered when they are clearly and directly relevant to human disease. Evaluation of commercial products have a low priority for publication, unless they are novel or represent a technological breakthrough. Studies dealing with effects of drugs and natural products and studies dealing with the redox status in various diseases are not within the journal''s scope. Development and evaluation of novel analytical methodologies where applicable to diagnostic clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine, including point-of-care testing, and topics on laboratory management and informatics will also be considered. Studies focused on emerging diagnostic technologies and (big) data analysis procedures including digitalization, mobile Health, and artificial Intelligence applied to Laboratory Medicine are also of interest.