ArticleVirchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology2012
Whole genome and transcriptome amplification: practicable tools for sustainable tissue biobanking?
Article in Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology, 2012. 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.
- Overlapping Presentations and Diverse Genetic Defects Characterize Neuroendocrine Neoplasms in a Mexican Cohort.The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism · 2025Article
- Unveiling the Future of Infective Endocarditis Diagnosis: The Transformative Role of Metagenomic Next-Generation Sequencing in Culture-Negative Cases.Journal of epidemiology and global health · 2025Review
- Validation of a Novel, Flash-Freezing Method: Aluminum Platform.Current protocols essential laboratory techniques · 2020Article
- Pathology and Biobanking.Turk patoloji dergisi · 2020Review
- Expression and Mutation Patterns of PBRM1, BAP1 and SETD2 Mirror Specific Evolutionary Subtypes in Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma.Neoplasia (New York, N.Y.) · 2019Article
- Article
- The procurement, storage, and quality assurance of frozen blood and tissue biospecimens in pathology, biorepository, and biobank settings.Clinical biochemistry · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of whole genome amplification (WGA) and whole transcriptome amplification (WTA) techniques enables the enrichment of DNA and RNA from very small amounts of tissue. Here, we tested the suitability of WGA and WTA for tumor tissue biobanking. DNA and RNA from 13 standardized and seven non-standardized frozen and 12 formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) clear cell renal cell carcinoma specimens (>9 years old) served to test the robustness of the WGA and WTA products by reidentifying von Hippel-Lindau (VHL) gene mutations known to exist in these samples. The enrichment of DNA and RNA from frozen tissue was up to 1,291-fold and 423-fold, respectively. The sizes and yields (10- to 73-fold) of the amplified DNA obtained from the 12 FFPE samples were generally lower. The quality of the RNA from the FFPE samples was too low to reliably perform WTA. Our results demonstrate that frozen tumor tissue is very suitable for WGA and WTA. All 20 VHL mutations were verified with WGA. Notably, we were able to show that 18 of the 20 (90 %) VHL mutations are also transcribed. In FFPE tumor tissue, 8 of 12 cases (67 %) showed the expected mutations after the first WGA. Accurate WTA with FFPE material is sophisticated and strongly depends on the modification and degradation status of the fixed tissue. We conclude that for sustainable tissue biobanking, the use of WGA and WTA is a unique opportunity to provide researchers with sufficient amounts of nucleic acids, preferably from limited frozen tissue material.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23007645What 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.