4.5 Article

Method Optimization for Extracting High-Quality RNA From the Human Pancreas Tissue

Journal

TRANSLATIONAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 11, Issue 3, Pages 800-807

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.tranon.2018.04.004

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Korean Health Technology R&D Project, Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea [HI14C2640]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Nucleic acid sequencing is frequently used to determine the molecular basis of diseases. Therefore, proper storage of biological specimens is essential to inhibit nucleic acid degradation. RNA isolated from the human pancreas is generally of poor quality because of its high concentration of endogenous RNase. In this study, we optimized the method for extracting high quality RNA from paired tumor and normal pancreatic tissues obtained from eight pancreatic cancer patients post-surgery. RNA integrity number (RIN) was checked to evaluate the integrity of RNA, we tried to extract the RNA with an RIN value of 8 or higher that allows for the latest genetic analysis. The effect of several parameters, including the method used for tissue lysis, RNAlater treatment, tissue weight at storage, and the time to storage after surgical resection, on the quantity and quality of RNA extracted was examined. Data showed that the highest quantity of RNA was isolated using a combination of manual and mechanical methods of tissue lysis. Additionally, sectioning the tissues into small pieces (<100 mg) and treating them with RNAlater solution prior to storage increased RNA stability. Following these guidelines, high quality RNA was obtained from 100% (8/8) of tumor tissues and 75% (6/8) of normal tissues. High-quality RNA was still stable under repeated freezing and thawing. The application of these results during sample handling and storage in clinical settings will facilitate the genetic diagnosis of diseases and their subsequent treatment.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available