ArticleJournal of translational medicine2025
Systematic comparison of quantity and quality of RNA recovered with commercial FFPE tissue extraction kits.
Article in Journal of translational medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Tissue Preservation and FFPE Samples: Optimized Nucleic Acids Isolation in Ewing Sarcoma.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2027Article
- Optimizing RNA quality in cryopreserved tissues without preservatives: impact of preservatives, thawing methods and tissue aliquot sizes.BMC biotechnology · 2025Article
- Spatial omics technology potentially promotes the progress of tumor immunotherapy.British journal of cancer · 2025Review
- Article
- Comparing RNA extraction protocols from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded microcore samples.PloS one · 2025Article
- Laser capture microdissection.Nature reviews. Methods primers · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFFPE tissue samples are commonly used in biomedical research and are a valuable source for next-generation sequencing in oncology, however, extracting RNA from these samples can be difficult the quantity and quality achieved can impact the downstream analysis. This study compared the effectiveness of seven different commercially available RNA extraction kits specifically designed for use with FFPE samples in terms of the quantity and quality of RNA recovered.
methodsThis study used 9 samples of FFPE tissue from three different types of tissue (Tonsil, Appendix and lymph node of B-cell lymphoma) to evaluate RNA extraction methods. Three sections of 20 µm of each sample were combined per sample. The slices were distributed in a systematic manner to prevent any biases. Each of the 7 commercially available RNA extraction kits were used according to manufacturer's instructions, with each sample being tested in triplicate resulting in a total of 189 extractions. The concentration, RNA quality score (RQS) and DV200 of each extraction was analysed using a nucleic acid analyser to determine the quantity and quality of the recovered RNA.
resultsThis study found that despite processing the FFPE samples in the same standardized way, there were disparities in the quantity and quality of RNA recovered across the different tissue types. Additionally, the study found notable differences in the quantity of RNA recovered when using different extraction kits. In terms of quality, three of the kits performed better than the other four in terms of RQS and DV200 values.
conclusionThough many laboratories have developed their own protocols for specific tissue types, using commercially available kits is still a popular option. Although these kits use similar processes and extraction procedures, the amount and quality of RNA obtained can vary greatly between kits. In this study, among the kits tested, while the Roche kit, provided a nearly systematic better-quality recovery than other kits, the ReliaPrep FFPE Total RNA miniprep from Promega yielded the best ratio of both quantity and quality on the tested tissue samples.
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.