ArticlePeerJ2021
Importance of experimental information (metadata) for archived sequence data: case of specific gene bias due to lag time between sample harvest and RNA protection in RNA sequencing.
Article in PeerJ, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Large volumes of high-throughput sequencing data have been submitted to the Sequencing Read Archive (SRA). The lack of experimental metadata associated with the data makes reuse and understanding data quality very difficult. In the case of RNA sequencing (RNA-Seq), which reveals the presence and quantity of RNA in a biological sample at any moment, it is necessary to consider that gene expression responds over a short time interval (several seconds to a few minutes) in many organisms. Therefore, to isolate RNA that accurately reflects the transcriptome at the point of harvest, raw biological samples should be processed by freezing in liquid nitrogen, immersing in RNA stabilization reagent or lysing and homogenizing in RNA lysis buffer containing guanidine thiocyanate as soon as possible. As the number of samples handled simultaneously increases, the time until the RNA is protected can increase. Here, to evaluate the effect of different lag times in RNA protection on RNA-Seq data, we harvested CHO-S cells after 3, 5, 6, and 7 days of cultivation, added RNA lysis buffer in a time course of 15, 30, 45, and 60 min after harvest, and conducted RNA-Seq. These RNA samples showed high RNA integrity number (RIN) values indicating non-degraded RNA, and sequence data from libraries prepared with these RNA samples was of high quality according to FastQC. We observed that, at the same cultivation day, global trends of gene expression were similar across the time course of addition of RNA lysis buffer; however, the expression of some genes was significantly different between the time-course samples of the same cultivation day; most of these differentially expressed genes were related to apoptosis. We conclude that the time lag between sample harvest and RNA protection influences gene expression of specific genes. It is, therefore, necessary to know not only RIN values of RNA and the quality of the sequence data but also how the experiment was performed when acquiring RNA-Seq data from the database.
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.