ArticleBMC research notes2010
Evaluation of a novel approach for the measurement of RNA quality.
Article in BMC research notes, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Characterizing Human Milk RNA Degradation Over Time to Optimize Storage of Human Milk for RNA Quality.Journal of mammary gland biology and neoplasia · 2026Article
- Asiaticoside Increases Caspase-9 Activity in MCF-7 Cells and Inhibits TNF-α and IL-6 Expression in Nude Mouse Xenografts via the NF-κB Pathway.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- The Effects of Surgical Antiseptics and Time Delays on RNA Isolated From Human and Rodent Peripheral Nerves.Frontiers in cellular neuroscience · 2019Article
- Brain tumor cell line authentication, an efficient alternative to capillary electrophoresis by using a microfluidics-based system.Neuro-oncology · 2014Article
- Investigating cell death mechanisms in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis using transcriptomics.Frontiers in cellular neuroscience · 2013Review
- Bleach gel: a simple agarose gel for analyzing RNA quality.Electrophoresis · 2012Article
- Variation of Peripheral Blood Mononuclear Cell RNA Quality in Archived Samples.Biopreservation and biobanking · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMicroarray data interpretation can be affected by sample RNA integrity. The ScreenTape Degradation Value (SDV) is a novel RNA integrity metric specific to the ScreenTape(R) platform (Lab901). To characterise the performance of the ScreenTape(R) platform for RNA analysis and determine the robustness of the SDV metric, a panel of intentionally degraded RNA samples was prepared. These samples were used to evaluate the ScreenTape(R) platform against an alternative approach for measuring RNA integrity (Agilent Bioanalyzer RIN value). The samples were also subjected to microarray analysis and the resulting data correlated to the RNA integrity metrics.
findingsMeasurement of SDV for a panel of intentionally degraded RNA samples ranged from 0 for intact RNA to 37 for degraded RNA, with corresponding RIN values ranging from 10 to 4 for the same set of samples. SDV and RIN scales both demonstrated comparable discrimination between differently treated samples (RIN 10 to 7, SDV 0 to 15), with the SDV exhibiting better discrimination at higher degradation levels. Increasing SDV values correlated with a decrease in microarray sample labelling efficiency and an increase in numbers of differentially expressed genes.
conclusionsThe ScreenTape(R) platform is comparable to the Bioanalyzer platform in terms of reproducibility and discrimination between different levels of RNA degradation. The robust nature of the SDV metric qualifies it as an alternative metric for RNA sample quality control, and a useful predictor of downstream microarray performance.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.