Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33804460›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2021

Coping with Tissue Sampling in Suboptimal Conditions: Comparison of Different Tissue Preservation Methods for Histological and Molecular Analysis.

Arturo Nicoletti, Paola Pregel, Laura Starvaggi Cucuzza, Francesca Tiziana Cannizzo, Alessandra Sereno, Frine Eleonora Scaglione

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Arturo NicolettiDepartment of Veterinary Sciences, University of Turin, Largo P. Braccini 2, 10095 Grugliasco, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-6706-4813
Paola PregelDepartment of Veterinary Sciences, University of Turin, Largo P. Braccini 2, 10095 Grugliasco, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-1509-5108
Laura Starvaggi CucuzzaDepartment of Veterinary Sciences, University of Turin, Largo P. Braccini 2, 10095 Grugliasco, Italy.
Francesca Tiziana CannizzoDepartment of Veterinary Sciences, University of Turin, Largo P. Braccini 2, 10095 Grugliasco, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-9553-5996
Alessandra SerenoDepartment of Veterinary Sciences, University of Turin, Largo P. Braccini 2, 10095 Grugliasco, Italy.
Frine Eleonora ScaglioneDepartment of Veterinary Sciences, University of Turin, Largo P. Braccini 2, 10095 Grugliasco, Italy.
University of Turin · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A high quality of samples is crucial for the success of the analysis and diagnostic purposes, and therefore the right method of conservation is vitally important for an optimal preservation of tissues. Indeed, the time to deliver the sample to the laboratory could be remarkably long, especially under suboptimal conditions, and the use of specific fixatives or cold storage may not be possible. Moreover, the portability and cost of storage equipment, their toxicity, and their ease of use play a central role when choosing the correct preservation method. The aim of this study was the identification of a reliable and economic method for tissue preservation, to be used in "in-field" sampling, suitable for both histological and molecular analysis. Punch biopsies were collected from six cattle livers. Comparisons among methods of preservation using RNAlater, silica beads, and under-vacuum was carried out. These methods were tested through considering different times and temperatures, assuming three days as a maximum time interval from sampling to laboratory and choosing 4 °C and 24 °C as references for refrigeration temperature and room temperature, respectively. Histologically, the integrity of nucleus, cytoplasm, preservation of liver structure, and easiness of recognition of inflammatory infiltrate were evaluated. The integrity of the extracted DNA and RNA was evaluated through PCR and by means of an automated electrophoresis station, respectively. RNAlater and silica beads poorly preserved the histological parameters evaluated, independently from the temperature. Conversely, the vacuum-sealed samples showed a good grade of preservation until 48 h. DNA quality was acceptable for each sample. RNA integrity showed promising results only for samples preserved with silica beads.

Indexed as

formalinsilica beadstissue preservationunder-vacuum

Identifiers

PMID33804460
PMCPMC8001879
OpenAlexW3134117453

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.