4.2 Article

Influence of formalin fixation duration on RNA quality and quantity from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded hepatocellular carcinoma tissues

期刊

PATHOLOGY INTERNATIONAL
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/pin.13385

关键词

FFPE; NGS; RNA quality; RNA quantity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Analyzing RNA samples from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissues is crucial for precision medicine. This study found that longer fixation times resulted in decreased RNA quantity and quality, as well as reduced sequencing reads. FFPE blocks stored for a longer duration also showed lower RNA yield and quality. It is important to avoid short and over-fixation during the fixation process for cancer patients, and adhere to recommended guidelines.
Analyzing RNA samples from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissues is essential for precision medicine. We investigated RNA quantity and quality from FFPE tumor tissues fixed in formalin for various times and compared sequencing metrics from next-generation sequencing (NGS). Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) tissues were fixed in 10% neutral buffered formalin (1-240 h) and FFPE blocks were prepared. Total RNA was extracted, and the quantity and quality were assessed using the NanoDrop, Qubit and Bioanalyzer. After preparing sequencing libraries, NGS was performed on the Oncomine Dx Multi-CDx system. Total RNA yields of all samples met the threshold required for NGS, but longer fixation times resulted in decreased total RNA and long RNA fragment (>200 nt) yields. NGS analysis showed fewer sequencing reads of internal control genes from RNA with longer fixation times. RNA extracted from FFPE blocks stored for 500 days had reduced RNA yield and quality compared with RNA obtained from FFPE blocks prepared immediately. In conclusion, short and over-fixation should be avoided because of their negative impact on sequencing quality. Fixation process should be finished promptly within recommended guidelines (6-72 h) for cancer patients.

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

4.2
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