4.1 Article

A Multivariate Evaluation of Factors Affecting the Quality of Freshly Frozen Tissue Specimens

Journal

BIOPRESERVATION AND BIOBANKING
Volume 15, Issue 4, Pages 344-349

Publisher

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/bio.2016.0104

Keywords

RNA quality; frozen specimen; preservation period; tissue type

Funding

  1. Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan [MOST 105-2320-B-182A-004-]
  2. Chang Gung Medical Research Program of Taiwan [CMRPG3D1323]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Well-prepared and preserved freshly frozen specimens are indispensable materials for clinical studies. To manage specimen quality and to understand the factors potentially affecting specimen quality during preservation processes, we analyzed the quality of RNA and genomic DNA of various tissues collected between 2002 and 2011 in Linkou Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taiwan. During this period, a total of 1059 freshly frozen specimens from eight major cancer categories were examined. It was found that preservation duration, organ origin, and tissue type could all influence the quality of RNA samples. The increased preservation period correlated with decreased RNA quality; the brain, breast, and stomach RNA specimens displayed faster degradation rates than those of other organs, and RNA specimens isolated from tumor tissues were apparently more stable than those of other tissues. These factors could all be used as quality predictors of RNA quality. In contrast, almost all analyses revealed that the genomic DNA samples had good quality, which was not influenced by the aforementioned factors. The results assisted us in determining preservation factors that affect specimen quality, which could provide evidence for improving processes of sample collection and preservation. Furthermore, the results are also useful for researchers to adopt as the evaluation criteria for choosing specimen collection and preservation strategies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available