ArticleBiomedical reports2024
Examination and comparison of the RNA extraction methods using mouse serum.
Article in Biomedical reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Plasma RNA-Based Dual Screening for Early/Extreme Spontaneous Preterm Birth and Early Onset Preeclampsia to Enable Prevention.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- MicroRNA‑21‑5p expression in extracellular vesicles is increased in the blood of aging mice and in vascular endothelial cells induced by ionizing radiation.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Serum microRNAs (miRNAs) are considered useful as non-invasive biomarkers for different diseases. However, the optimal method for extracting RNAs from serum is currently unknown. In the present study, several RNA extraction kits were used to examine the optimal kit. RNAs were extracted from the serum of 8-week-old C57BL/6NJcl male mice following the protocol of each RNA extraction kit. The yield of the extracted RNA samples was calculated, and an Agilent Bioanalyzer was used to assess the electrophoretic patterns. An Agilent mouse miRNA microarray was utilized to confirm the expression patterns of the extracted RNA samples. The results revealed significant differences in RNA yields from the miRNeasy Serum/Plasma Advanced kit and mirVana™ PARIS™ RNA and Native Protein Purification Kit compared with almost all other samples. Further, two peaks were determined in the miRNeasy Serum/Plasma Advanced kit using a small RNAs kit of Agilent Bioanalyzer, including one at 20-40 nucleotides (nt) and another at ~40-100 nt, whereas the other reagents had a single peak. This revealed that the extracted RNAs may differ in composition based on the RNA extraction method. Some types of miRNAs were only detected with certain RNA extraction reagents. This suggested that different RNA extraction reagents may cause differences in the types of miRNAs detected. On the other hand, the miRNAs commonly expressed by the three RNA extraction reagents are highly correlated in expression levels.
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.