ArticlePloS one2019
Quality assessment of tissue samples stored in a specialized human lung biobank.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimizing Tissue Sampling Timing for Accurate Gene Expression Analysis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Optimization of RNA extraction methods from human metabolic tissue samples of the COMET biobank.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Impact of different stabilization methods on RT-qPCR results using human lung tissue samples.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- EUS-guided fine-needle technique facilitates the establishment of organoid biobanks.Endoscopic ultrasoundArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Human sample, from patients or healthy donors, are a valuable link between basic research and clinic. Especially in translational research, they play an essential role in understanding development and progression of diseases as well as in developing new diagnostic and therapeutic tools. Stored in biobanks, fast access to appropriate material becomes possible. However, biobanking in a clinical context faces several challenges. In practice, collecting samples during clinical routine does not allow to strictly adhere to protocols of sample collection in all aspects. This may influence sample quality to variable degrees. Time from sample draw to asservation is a variable factor, and influences of prolonged storage at ambient temperature of tissues are not well understood. We investigated whether delays between 5 minutes and 3 hours, and the use of RNAlater RNA-preserving reagent would lead to a relevant drop in sample quality, measured by quantitative mRNA expression analysis. Our findings suggest that even under ambient conditions, delays up to 3 hours do not have a major impact on sample quality as long as the tissue remains intact.
Indexed as
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.