4.7 Article

Optimization of RNA extraction methods from human metabolic tissue samples of the COMET biobank

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-00355-x

关键词

-

资金

  1. SATT AxLR
  2. University of Montpellier
  3. University Hospital of Montpellier
  4. Institut de Recherches Internationales Servier
  5. Institut de Recherche Servier (Suresnes, France)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the impact of different disruption techniques and homogenizing buffers on the purity and quality markers of RNA in human metabolic tissues, highlighting how these factors can affect RNA analysis and quantification by RT-qPCR.
Constitution of biobank of human tissues requires careful handling and storage of biological material, to guarantee the quality of samples. Tissue preparation is also critical for further applications such as transcriptomic profiling. In this study, our aim was to evaluate the impact of different disruption techniques (FastPrep-24 instrument, GentleMACS dissociator, and syringe/needle) and homogenizing buffers (RLT versus QIAzol) on RNA purity and quality of metabolic tissues (adipose tissues, liver and skeletal muscle) present in the COMET Biobank. For all homogenization methods used and tissue types, the A260/280 ratios reached values >= 1.8, which are in the range of what is found in human tissues and cell lines, while the A260/230 ratios were however <= 1.8, with the lowest value obtained with GentleMACS Dissociator. In addition, GentleMACS Dissociator combined with QIAzol reagent gave the highest RIN value and 28S/18S ratio for all tissues tested, except for muscle. Performing RT-qPCR, Ct values for different housekeeping genes can be influenced by extraction methods and RNA quality of samples. In conclusion, we have demonstrated that different disruption techniques and homogenizing buffers impact the purity and some quality markers of RNA, and can also impact quantification of mRNAs by RT-qPCR in human metabolic tissues.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据