Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41530668›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2026

In-depth comparison of methods to isolate RNA from common human cell lines.

Thomas Josef Zech, Robert Fürst

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Thomas Josef ZechPharmaceutical Biology, Deparmtent of Pharmacy - Center for Drug Research, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Butenandtstraße 5-13, Munich, 81377, Bavaria, Germany. thomas.zech@cup.lmu.de.
Robert FürstPharmaceutical Biology, Deparmtent of Pharmacy - Center for Drug Research, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Butenandtstraße 5-13, Munich, 81377, Bavaria, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

RNA isolation is a fundamental procedure that is universally applied in biomedical research. The isolation of high-quality and high-purity RNA is essential for many biochemical analyses, including RT-qPCR and RNA sequencing. However, this isolation can be challenging due to the instability of RNA, its structural similarity to DNA, and the complexity of biological samples. Numerous methods and kits have been developed and marketed to surmount these challenges. To this day, most studies comparing these methods for RNA isolation have focused on samples that are especially difficult to process, such as FFPE tissue. In contrast, few studies have compared different RNA isolation procedures using simpler samples, such as mammalian cell cultures. Moreover, most studies employ outdated and/or incomplete analysis techniques or only compare a minimal set of methods. This article presents a thorough comparison of various manual RNA isolation methods, with a focus on spin column-based kits. The isolated RNAs were evaluated regarding yield, integrity, and purity using state-of-the-art techniques: photometric analysis, automated electrophoresis-based integrity measurement, and qPCR. While most kits performed satisfactorily, our results highlight some outliers, particularly regarding genomic DNA contamination and RNA integrity. This comprehensive analysis provides researchers with valuable data to support selecting an appropriate RNA isolation method.

Indexed as

RNACell LineHumansRNAgDNA contaminationRNA integrityRNA isolationRNA purityRNA yield

Identifiers

PMID41530668
PMCPMC12836834

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.