ArticleMolecular biology reports2023
Comparing RNA extraction methods to face the variations in RNA quality using two human biological matrices.
Article in Molecular biology reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- In-depth comparison of methods to isolate RNA from common human cell lines.BMC genomics · 2026Article
- Translating Exosomal microRNAs from Bench to Bedside in Parkinson's Disease.Brain sciences · 2025Review
- Circular RNAs as Novel Biomarkers and Application in Cardiovascular Diseases.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNucleic acids, RNA among them, are widely used in biomedicine and Biotechnology. Because of their susceptibility to degradation by RNases, the handling and extraction process of RNA from cells and tissues require specialized personnel and standardized methods to guarantee high purity and integrity. Due to the diversity of techniques found in the market, a comparative study between different RNA extraction methods is useful to facilitate the best choice for the researcher or in research service platforms such as biobanks to see the traceability of the samples. METHODS AND
resultsIn this study, we have compared seven different RNA extraction methods: manual (TRIzol™), semiautomated (QIAGEN™, Bio-Rad, Monarch®, and Canvax™), and fully automated (QIAcube™ and Maxwell®) processes, from two biological matrices: human Jurkat T cells and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC). Results showed marked differences in the RNA quality and functionality according to the method employed for RNA extraction and the matrix used. DISCUSSION: QIAcube™ and semi-automated extraction methods were perceived as the best options because of their lower variability, good functionality, and lower cost (P < 0.001). These data contribute to facilitating researchers or research service platforms (Biobanks) in decision-making practices and emphasize the relevance of the selection of the RNA extraction method in each experimental procedure or traceability study to guarantee both quality standards and its reproducibility.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37812354What 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.