55
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    1
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Yielding quality viral RNA by using two different chemistries: a comparative performance study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Purity and integrity are two important criteria for any RNA extraction process to qualify the RNA for meaningful gene expression analysis. This study compares four commercially available RNA extraction kits using silica membrane and magnetic bead separation methods. The performance was evaluated in terms of both quantity (total RNA amount in μg/μl) and purity (260/280 ratio). The concentration and purity of each kit was significantly different from those of the others (p < 0.001). Although quantity obtained from Mag MAX is comparatively lower than QIAGEN, the quality is comparable as evident from real-time PCR performance. This study suggests that there are practical differences between these RNA extraction kits that should be taken into account while isolating RNA required for gene expression analysis.

          Method summary

          This study compares two chemistries being used for RNA extraction methods: two kits use spin column, and two kits use magnetic bead-based separation. The purity and integrity were further confirmed through real-time PCR. The significance in terms of difference and extent of variation was statistically analyzed.

          Graphical abstract

          Related collections

          Most cited references14

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          RNA-seq: impact of RNA degradation on transcript quantification

          Background The use of low quality RNA samples in whole-genome gene expression profiling remains controversial. It is unclear if transcript degradation in low quality RNA samples occurs uniformly, in which case the effects of degradation can be corrected via data normalization, or whether different transcripts are degraded at different rates, potentially biasing measurements of expression levels. This concern has rendered the use of low quality RNA samples in whole-genome expression profiling problematic. Yet, low quality samples (for example, samples collected in the course of fieldwork) are at times the sole means of addressing specific questions. Results We sought to quantify the impact of variation in RNA quality on estimates of gene expression levels based on RNA-seq data. To do so, we collected expression data from tissue samples that were allowed to decay for varying amounts of time prior to RNA extraction. The RNA samples we collected spanned the entire range of RNA Integrity Number (RIN) values (a metric commonly used to assess RNA quality). We observed widespread effects of RNA quality on measurements of gene expression levels, as well as a slight but significant loss of library complexity in more degraded samples. Conclusions While standard normalizations failed to account for the effects of degradation, we found that by explicitly controlling for the effects of RIN using a linear model framework we can correct for the majority of these effects. We conclude that in instances in which RIN and the effect of interest are not associated, this approach can help recover biologically meaningful signals in data from degraded RNA samples.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Use of UV methods for measurement of protein and nucleic acid concentrations.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              A comparison of commercially-available automated and manual extraction kits for the isolation of total RNA from small tissue samples

              Background This study compared the performance of five commercially available kits in extracting total RNA from small eukaryotic tissue samples (<15 mg). Total RNA was isolated from fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) tissues (spleen, blood, kidney, embryo, and larvae) using the Qiagen RNeasy® Plus Mini, Qiagen RNeasy® Plus Universal, Promega Maxwell® 16 LEV simplyRNA, Ambion MagMAX™-96 and Promega SimplyRNA HT kits. Kit performance was evaluated via measures of RNA quantity (e.g., total RNA amount) and quality (e.g., ratio of absorbance at 260 and 280 nm, RNA integrity number (RIN), presence of gDNA). Results With the exception of embryos, each kit generally extracted ≥5 μg of total RNA from each sample. With regard to RNA quality, the RINs of RNA samples isolated via the Plus Mini and Maxwell® 16 kits were consistently higher than those of samples extracted via the remaining three kits and for all tissues, these kits produced intact RNA with average RIN values ≥7. The Plus Universal and SimplyRNA HT kits produced moderately degraded (RIN values <7, but ≥5), while the RNA recovered via the MagMAX™ kit tended to exhibit a high degree of degradation (RIN values <5). Conclusions Each kit was generally capable of extracting the amount of RNA required for most downstream gene expression applications suggesting that RNA yield is unlikely to be a limiting factor for any of the kits evaluated. However, differences in the quality of RNA extracted via each of the kits indicate that these kits may differ in their ability to yield RNA acceptable for some applications. Overall, the findings of this study demonstrate that there are practical differences between commercially available RNA extraction kits that should be taken into account when selecting extraction methods to be used for isolating RNA designated for gene expression analysis. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12896-014-0094-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BTN
                BioTechniques
                Future Science Ltd (London, UK )
                0736-6205
                1940-9818
                16 September 2021
                August 2021
                : 71
                : 4
                : 510-515
                Affiliations
                1Virus Research & Diagnostic Laboratory, ICMR-Regional Medical Research Centre, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India
                2PRMMCH, Baripada, Odisha, Pandit Raghunath Murmu Medical College, Baripada, Odisha
                Author notes
                [* ]Author for correspondence: Tel.: +91 765 391 5589; drjyotirmayeeturuk@ 123456gmail.com
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4441-6625
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8821-6097
                Article
                10.2144/btn-2021-0054
                34528832
                ad63888d-81d5-4f33-a92f-1d224561cecd
                © 2021 Dr. Jyotirmayee Turuk

                This work is licensed under the Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Unported License

                History
                : 07 June 2021
                : 25 August 2021
                : 16 September 2021
                Page count
                Pages: 6
                Categories
                Reports

                General life sciences,Cell biology,Molecular biology,Biotechnology,Genetics,Life sciences
                yield,extraction,GITC,magnetic bead,nucleic acid,purity,real-time PCR,RNA,SARS-CoV-2,spin column

                Comments

                Comment on this article