ArticlePloS one2022
Assessment of RNA extraction protocols from cladocerans.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
The usage of cladocerans as non-model organisms in ecotoxicological and risk assessment studies has intensified in recent years due to their ecological importance in aquatic ecosystems. The molecular assessment such as gene expression analysis has been introduced in ecotoxicological and risk assessment to link the expression of specific genes to a biological process in the cladocerans. The validity and accuracy of gene expression analysis depends on the quantity, quality and integrity of extracted ribonucleic acid (RNA) of the sample. However, the standard methods of RNA extraction from the cladocerans are still lacking. This study evaluates the extraction of RNA from tropical freshwater cladocerans Moina micrura using two methods: the phenol-chloroform extraction method (QIAzol) and a column-based kit (Qiagen Micro Kit). Glycogen was introduced in both approaches to enhance the recovery of extracted RNA and the extracted RNA was characterised using spectrophotometric analysis (NanoDrop), capillary electrophoresis (Bioanalyzer). Then, the extracted RNA was analysed with reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) to validate the RNA extraction method towards downstream gene expression analysis. The results indicate that the column-based kit is most suitable for the extraction of RNA from M. micrura, with the quantity (RNA concentration = 26.90 ± 6.89 ng/μl), quality (A260:230 = 1.95 ± 0.15, A280:230 = 1.85 ± 0.09) and integrity (RNA integrity number, RIN = 7.20 ± 0.16). The RT-PCR analysis shows that the method successfully amplified both alpha tubulin and actin gene at 33-35 cycles (i.e. Ct = 32.64 to 33.48). The results demonstrate that the addition of glycogen is only suitable for the phenol-chloroform extraction method. RNA extraction with high and comprehensive quality control assessment will increase the accuracy and reliability of downstream gene expression, thus providing more ecotoxicological data at the molecular biological level on other freshwater zooplankton species.
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.