档案材料的表达分析:从FFPE样品中提取的RNA的分离和定量。

Christophe Deben, Karen Zwaenepoel, Carolien Boeckx, An Wouters, Patrick Pauwels, Marc Peeters, Filip Lardon, Marc Baay, Vanessa Deschoolmeester
{"title":"档案材料的表达分析:从FFPE样品中提取的RNA的分离和定量。","authors":"Christophe Deben,&nbsp;Karen Zwaenepoel,&nbsp;Carolien Boeckx,&nbsp;An Wouters,&nbsp;Patrick Pauwels,&nbsp;Marc Peeters,&nbsp;Filip Lardon,&nbsp;Marc Baay,&nbsp;Vanessa Deschoolmeester","doi":"10.1097/PDM.0b013e318269de3b","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue is the most readily available source of RNA for the gene expression studies. The main disadvantage is the poor quality of isolated RNA. Our group recently compared 5 commercially available RNA isolation kits and concluded that the RNeasy FFPE kit from Qiagen was the most appropriate one. However, this kit has been discontinued and replaced by a new version. In this study both kits were compared, and spectrophotometric and fluorometric analyses for quantification of RNA samples extracted from FFPE tissue.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Both RNeasy FFPE kits were compared for the total RNA and DNA yields, purity, and raw cycle threshold. Quantity and quality of the isolated RNA was measured using the NanoDrop ND-1000 spectrophotometer and Qubit 2.0 fluorometer.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The average concentration of RNA extracted from FFPE tissue measured using the NanoDrop was 32.0%±9.5% higher than the concentration measured using the Qubit. When measuring an RNA sample extracted from a cell line, the concentration measured using both methods was similar. When comparing both RNeasy FFPE kits, marginal differences were observed for total RNA yield, purity, and raw cycle threshold. However, the residual DNA in the samples isolated using the old kit was higher than in the samples isolated using the new kit.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A fluorometric analysis is more suitable for quantification of RNA samples extracted from FFPE tissue compared with spectrophotometric analysis. For RNA isolation from FFPE tissue, both old and new RNeasy FFPE kits were adequate. The new kit resulted in more efficient DNA removal.</p>","PeriodicalId":11235,"journal":{"name":"Diagnostic Molecular Pathology","volume":"22 1","pages":"59-64"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1097/PDM.0b013e318269de3b","citationCount":"27","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Expression analysis on archival material revisited: isolation and quantification of RNA extracted from FFPE samples.\",\"authors\":\"Christophe Deben,&nbsp;Karen Zwaenepoel,&nbsp;Carolien Boeckx,&nbsp;An Wouters,&nbsp;Patrick Pauwels,&nbsp;Marc Peeters,&nbsp;Filip Lardon,&nbsp;Marc Baay,&nbsp;Vanessa Deschoolmeester\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/PDM.0b013e318269de3b\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue is the most readily available source of RNA for the gene expression studies. The main disadvantage is the poor quality of isolated RNA. Our group recently compared 5 commercially available RNA isolation kits and concluded that the RNeasy FFPE kit from Qiagen was the most appropriate one. However, this kit has been discontinued and replaced by a new version. In this study both kits were compared, and spectrophotometric and fluorometric analyses for quantification of RNA samples extracted from FFPE tissue.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Both RNeasy FFPE kits were compared for the total RNA and DNA yields, purity, and raw cycle threshold. Quantity and quality of the isolated RNA was measured using the NanoDrop ND-1000 spectrophotometer and Qubit 2.0 fluorometer.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The average concentration of RNA extracted from FFPE tissue measured using the NanoDrop was 32.0%±9.5% higher than the concentration measured using the Qubit. When measuring an RNA sample extracted from a cell line, the concentration measured using both methods was similar. When comparing both RNeasy FFPE kits, marginal differences were observed for total RNA yield, purity, and raw cycle threshold. However, the residual DNA in the samples isolated using the old kit was higher than in the samples isolated using the new kit.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A fluorometric analysis is more suitable for quantification of RNA samples extracted from FFPE tissue compared with spectrophotometric analysis. For RNA isolation from FFPE tissue, both old and new RNeasy FFPE kits were adequate. The new kit resulted in more efficient DNA removal.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11235,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Diagnostic Molecular Pathology\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"59-64\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1097/PDM.0b013e318269de3b\",\"citationCount\":\"27\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Diagnostic Molecular Pathology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/PDM.0b013e318269de3b\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diagnostic Molecular Pathology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/PDM.0b013e318269de3b","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 27

摘要

背景:福尔马林固定石蜡包埋(FFPE)组织是基因表达研究中最容易获得的RNA来源。主要的缺点是分离的RNA质量差。我们小组最近比较了5种市售的RNA分离试剂盒,认为Qiagen公司的RNeasy FFPE试剂盒是最合适的试剂盒。然而,这个工具包已经停产,取而代之的是一个新的版本。在本研究中,对两种试剂盒进行了比较,并对从FFPE组织中提取的RNA样品进行了分光光度法和荧光法定量分析。方法:比较两种RNeasy FFPE试剂盒的总RNA和DNA产量、纯度和原始周期阈值。采用NanoDrop ND-1000分光光度计和Qubit 2.0荧光仪测定分离RNA的数量和质量。结果:NanoDrop提取的FFPE组织RNA平均浓度比Qubit高32.0%±9.5%。当测量从细胞系中提取的RNA样品时,使用两种方法测量的浓度是相似的。当比较两种RNeasy FFPE试剂盒时,观察到总RNA产量,纯度和原始循环阈值的边际差异。然而,使用旧试剂盒分离的样品中的残留DNA高于使用新试剂盒分离的样品。结论:荧光法比分光光度法更适合于FFPE组织中RNA样品的定量分析。对于从FFPE组织中分离RNA,新旧RNeasy FFPE试剂盒都是足够的。新的试剂盒导致了更有效的DNA去除。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Expression analysis on archival material revisited: isolation and quantification of RNA extracted from FFPE samples.

Background: Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue is the most readily available source of RNA for the gene expression studies. The main disadvantage is the poor quality of isolated RNA. Our group recently compared 5 commercially available RNA isolation kits and concluded that the RNeasy FFPE kit from Qiagen was the most appropriate one. However, this kit has been discontinued and replaced by a new version. In this study both kits were compared, and spectrophotometric and fluorometric analyses for quantification of RNA samples extracted from FFPE tissue.

Methods: Both RNeasy FFPE kits were compared for the total RNA and DNA yields, purity, and raw cycle threshold. Quantity and quality of the isolated RNA was measured using the NanoDrop ND-1000 spectrophotometer and Qubit 2.0 fluorometer.

Results: The average concentration of RNA extracted from FFPE tissue measured using the NanoDrop was 32.0%±9.5% higher than the concentration measured using the Qubit. When measuring an RNA sample extracted from a cell line, the concentration measured using both methods was similar. When comparing both RNeasy FFPE kits, marginal differences were observed for total RNA yield, purity, and raw cycle threshold. However, the residual DNA in the samples isolated using the old kit was higher than in the samples isolated using the new kit.

Conclusions: A fluorometric analysis is more suitable for quantification of RNA samples extracted from FFPE tissue compared with spectrophotometric analysis. For RNA isolation from FFPE tissue, both old and new RNeasy FFPE kits were adequate. The new kit resulted in more efficient DNA removal.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Diagnostic Molecular Pathology focuses on providing clinical and academic pathologists with coverage of the latest molecular technologies, timely reviews of established techniques, and papers on the applications of these methods to all aspects of surgical pathology and laboratory medicine. It publishes original, peer-reviewed contributions on molecular probes for diagnosis, such as tumor suppressor genes, oncogenes, the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and in situ hybridization. Articles demonstrate how these highly sensitive techniques can be applied for more accurate diagnosis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信