ArticleBioTechniques2025
Impact of commercial RNA extraction methods on the recovery of human RNA sequence data from archival fixed tissues.
Article in BioTechniques, 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Archival fixed tissues hold key insights into the evolutionary history of RNA viruses and the associated host immune response, yet access to the RNA sequence data is limited by a lack of robust methods for RNA extraction and sequence retrieval from these tissue types. Here we compared three commercial RNA extraction techniques (bead, column, and phase-based) on five fixed human brain tissues done in triplicate, that have been stored for up to 43 years. We found that for this sample set, bead-based extractions captured longer molecules and yielded a greater proportion of unique reads when aligned to the human genome, than did column and phase-based extraction methods. Via the incorporation of multiple extraction replicates, we quantified the variability in sequencing metrics resulting from tissue sample and extraction technique heterogeneity. Additionally, we compared pre- and post-sequencing metrics and found that the former poorly predicted post-sequencing on-target success. Our findings help inform future research on the recovery of RNA from archival fixed tissues.
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.