ArticleScientific reports2025
How sample handling distorts telomere studies.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
- Telomere trajectories from early adolescence to adulthood following early institutionalization: Protective effects of foster care in the Bucharest Early Intervention Project.Psychoneuroendocrinology · 2026Trial
- Methods for telomere length measurement: an update on current technologies and emerging approaches.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Telomere length (TL) is investigated as a biomarker for aging and disease-susceptibility, but measurement using quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) faces challenges in accuracy and reproducibility. The potential impact of pre-analytical factors on TL measurements remains underexplored. We evaluated the impact of delayed blood processing, a typical feature in population studies. Blood samples from 35 adults were processed for buffy coat extraction either immediately or kept at 4 °C and processed after three and seven days (total n = 105). After processing, samples were stored at -80 °C. Relative TL was measured via qPCR and expressed as T/S ratio. Strikingly, delayed blood processing led to a significant increase in TL: the mean T/S ratio was 0.886 ± 0.205 at day 0, rising to 1.022 ± 0.240 at day 3 (p = 0.03) and to 1.190 ± 0.205 at day 7 (p < 0.001), corresponding to increases of 15% and 34%, respectively. Notably, TL correlated inversely with DNA integrity. These findings underscore the critical impact of delayed sample processing on TL measurements, emphasizing the need for consistent pre-analytical protocols to ensure accurate and reliable research outcomes. The impact of our findings is considerable as it may overshadow not only previously reported results but also real biological differences in TL between studied groups of patients.
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.