Cargando…

A comparison of commercially-available automated and manual extraction kits for the isolation of total RNA from small tissue samples

BACKGROUND: This study compared the performance of five commercially available kits in extracting total RNA from small eukaryotic tissue samples (<15 mg). Total RNA was isolated from fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) tissues (spleen, blood, kidney, embryo, and larvae) using the Qiagen RNeasy®...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sellin Jeffries, Marlo K, Kiss, Andor J, Smith, Austin W, Oris, James T
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4239376/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25394494
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12896-014-0094-8
_version_ 1782345588260470784
author Sellin Jeffries, Marlo K
Kiss, Andor J
Smith, Austin W
Oris, James T
author_facet Sellin Jeffries, Marlo K
Kiss, Andor J
Smith, Austin W
Oris, James T
author_sort Sellin Jeffries, Marlo K
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: This study compared the performance of five commercially available kits in extracting total RNA from small eukaryotic tissue samples (<15 mg). Total RNA was isolated from fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) tissues (spleen, blood, kidney, embryo, and larvae) using the Qiagen RNeasy® Plus Mini, Qiagen RNeasy® Plus Universal, Promega Maxwell® 16 LEV simplyRNA, Ambion MagMAX™-96 and Promega SimplyRNA HT kits. Kit performance was evaluated via measures of RNA quantity (e.g., total RNA amount) and quality (e.g., ratio of absorbance at 260 and 280 nm, RNA integrity number (RIN), presence of gDNA). RESULTS: With the exception of embryos, each kit generally extracted ≥5 μg of total RNA from each sample. With regard to RNA quality, the RINs of RNA samples isolated via the Plus Mini and Maxwell® 16 kits were consistently higher than those of samples extracted via the remaining three kits and for all tissues, these kits produced intact RNA with average RIN values ≥7. The Plus Universal and SimplyRNA HT kits produced moderately degraded (RIN values <7, but ≥5), while the RNA recovered via the MagMAX™ kit tended to exhibit a high degree of degradation (RIN values <5). CONCLUSIONS: Each kit was generally capable of extracting the amount of RNA required for most downstream gene expression applications suggesting that RNA yield is unlikely to be a limiting factor for any of the kits evaluated. However, differences in the quality of RNA extracted via each of the kits indicate that these kits may differ in their ability to yield RNA acceptable for some applications. Overall, the findings of this study demonstrate that there are practical differences between commercially available RNA extraction kits that should be taken into account when selecting extraction methods to be used for isolating RNA designated for gene expression analysis. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12896-014-0094-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4239376
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-42393762014-11-21 A comparison of commercially-available automated and manual extraction kits for the isolation of total RNA from small tissue samples Sellin Jeffries, Marlo K Kiss, Andor J Smith, Austin W Oris, James T BMC Biotechnol Methodology Article BACKGROUND: This study compared the performance of five commercially available kits in extracting total RNA from small eukaryotic tissue samples (<15 mg). Total RNA was isolated from fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) tissues (spleen, blood, kidney, embryo, and larvae) using the Qiagen RNeasy® Plus Mini, Qiagen RNeasy® Plus Universal, Promega Maxwell® 16 LEV simplyRNA, Ambion MagMAX™-96 and Promega SimplyRNA HT kits. Kit performance was evaluated via measures of RNA quantity (e.g., total RNA amount) and quality (e.g., ratio of absorbance at 260 and 280 nm, RNA integrity number (RIN), presence of gDNA). RESULTS: With the exception of embryos, each kit generally extracted ≥5 μg of total RNA from each sample. With regard to RNA quality, the RINs of RNA samples isolated via the Plus Mini and Maxwell® 16 kits were consistently higher than those of samples extracted via the remaining three kits and for all tissues, these kits produced intact RNA with average RIN values ≥7. The Plus Universal and SimplyRNA HT kits produced moderately degraded (RIN values <7, but ≥5), while the RNA recovered via the MagMAX™ kit tended to exhibit a high degree of degradation (RIN values <5). CONCLUSIONS: Each kit was generally capable of extracting the amount of RNA required for most downstream gene expression applications suggesting that RNA yield is unlikely to be a limiting factor for any of the kits evaluated. However, differences in the quality of RNA extracted via each of the kits indicate that these kits may differ in their ability to yield RNA acceptable for some applications. Overall, the findings of this study demonstrate that there are practical differences between commercially available RNA extraction kits that should be taken into account when selecting extraction methods to be used for isolating RNA designated for gene expression analysis. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12896-014-0094-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2014-11-14 /pmc/articles/PMC4239376/ /pubmed/25394494 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12896-014-0094-8 Text en © Sellin Jeffries et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Methodology Article
Sellin Jeffries, Marlo K
Kiss, Andor J
Smith, Austin W
Oris, James T
A comparison of commercially-available automated and manual extraction kits for the isolation of total RNA from small tissue samples
title A comparison of commercially-available automated and manual extraction kits for the isolation of total RNA from small tissue samples
title_full A comparison of commercially-available automated and manual extraction kits for the isolation of total RNA from small tissue samples
title_fullStr A comparison of commercially-available automated and manual extraction kits for the isolation of total RNA from small tissue samples
title_full_unstemmed A comparison of commercially-available automated and manual extraction kits for the isolation of total RNA from small tissue samples
title_short A comparison of commercially-available automated and manual extraction kits for the isolation of total RNA from small tissue samples
title_sort comparison of commercially-available automated and manual extraction kits for the isolation of total rna from small tissue samples
topic Methodology Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4239376/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25394494
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12896-014-0094-8
work_keys_str_mv AT sellinjeffriesmarlok acomparisonofcommerciallyavailableautomatedandmanualextractionkitsfortheisolationoftotalrnafromsmalltissuesamples
AT kissandorj acomparisonofcommerciallyavailableautomatedandmanualextractionkitsfortheisolationoftotalrnafromsmalltissuesamples
AT smithaustinw acomparisonofcommerciallyavailableautomatedandmanualextractionkitsfortheisolationoftotalrnafromsmalltissuesamples
AT orisjamest acomparisonofcommerciallyavailableautomatedandmanualextractionkitsfortheisolationoftotalrnafromsmalltissuesamples
AT sellinjeffriesmarlok comparisonofcommerciallyavailableautomatedandmanualextractionkitsfortheisolationoftotalrnafromsmalltissuesamples
AT kissandorj comparisonofcommerciallyavailableautomatedandmanualextractionkitsfortheisolationoftotalrnafromsmalltissuesamples
AT smithaustinw comparisonofcommerciallyavailableautomatedandmanualextractionkitsfortheisolationoftotalrnafromsmalltissuesamples
AT orisjamest comparisonofcommerciallyavailableautomatedandmanualextractionkitsfortheisolationoftotalrnafromsmalltissuesamples