4.3 Article

Factors That Influence the Quality of RNA From the Pancreas of Organ Donors

期刊

PANCREAS
卷 46, 期 2, 页码 252-259

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MPA.0000000000000717

关键词

pancreas; human; RNA quality; organ donors; diabetes; RIN

资金

  1. Network for Pancreatic Organ Donors with Diabetes
  2. Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation [25-2013-268, 25-2012-380, 25-2007-874, 47-2013-520]
  3. National Institute of Diabetes Digestive and Kidney Diseases [DK104155-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Attaining high-quality RNA fromthe tissues or organs of deceased donors used for research can be challenging due to physiological and logistical considerations. In this investigation, Methods: RNA Integrity Number (RIN) was determined in pancreatic samples from 236 organ donors and used to define high (>= 6.5) and low (<= 4.5) quality RNAs. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the potential effects of novel or established organ and donor factors on RIN. Results: Univariate analysis revealed donor cause of death (odds ratio [OR], 0.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15-0.77; P = 0.01), prolonged tissue storage before RNA extraction (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.52-0.79; P < 0.01), pancreas region sampled (multiple comparisons, P < 0.01), and sample type (OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.15-0.67; P < 0.01) negatively influenced outcome. Conversely, duration of final hospitalization (OR, 3.95; 95% CI, 1.59-10.37; P < 0.01) and sample collection protocol (OR, 8.48; 95% CI, 3.96-19.30; P < 0.01) positively impacted outcome. Islet RNA obtained via laser capture microdissection improved RIN when compared with total pancreatic RNA from the same donor (Delta RIN = 1.3; 95% CI, 0.6-2.0; P < 0.01). Conclusions: A multivariable model demonstrates that autopsy-free and biopsy-free human pancreata received, processed, and preserved at a single center, using optimized procedures, from organ donors dying of anoxia with normal lipase levels increase the odds of obtaining high-quality RNA.

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

4.3
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