Cargando…

Comparison of frozen and RNALater solid tissue storage methods for use in RNA expression microarrays

BACKGROUND: Primary human tissues are an invaluable widely used tool for discovery of gene expression patterns which characterize disease states. Tissue processing methods remain unstandardized, leading to unanswered concerns of how to best store collected tissues and maintain reproducibility betwee...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mutter, George L, Zahrieh, David, Liu, Chunmei, Neuberg, Donna, Finkelstein, David, Baker, Heather E, Warrington, Janet A
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2004
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC534099/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15537428
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-5-88
_version_ 1782121998456979456
author Mutter, George L
Zahrieh, David
Liu, Chunmei
Neuberg, Donna
Finkelstein, David
Baker, Heather E
Warrington, Janet A
author_facet Mutter, George L
Zahrieh, David
Liu, Chunmei
Neuberg, Donna
Finkelstein, David
Baker, Heather E
Warrington, Janet A
author_sort Mutter, George L
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Primary human tissues are an invaluable widely used tool for discovery of gene expression patterns which characterize disease states. Tissue processing methods remain unstandardized, leading to unanswered concerns of how to best store collected tissues and maintain reproducibility between laboratories. We subdivided uterine myometrial tissue specimens and stored split aliquots using the most common tissue processing methods (fresh, frozen, RNALater) before comparing quantitative RNA expression profiles on the Affymetrix U133 human expression array. Split samples and inclusion of duplicates within each processing group allowed us to undertake a formal genome-wide analysis comparing the magnitude of result variation contributed by sample source (different patients), processing protocol (fresh vs. frozen vs. 24 or 72 hours RNALater), and random background (duplicates). The dataset was randomly permuted to define a baseline pattern of ANOVA test statistic values against which the observed results could be interpreted. RESULTS: 14,639 of 22,283 genes were expressed in at least one sample. Patient subjects provided the greatest sources of variation in the mixed model ANOVA, with replicates and processing method the least. The magnitude of variation conferred by processing method (24 hours RNALater vs 72 hours RNALater vs. fresh vs frozen) was similar to the variability seen within replicates. Subset analysis of the test statistic according to gene functional class showed that the frequency of "outlier" ANOVA results within each functional class is overall no greater than expected by chance. CONCLUSIONS: Ambient storage of tissues for 24 or 72 hours in RNALater did not contribute any systematic shift in quantitative RNA expression results relative to the alternatives of fresh or frozen tissue. This nontoxic preservative enables decentralized tissue collection for expression array analysis without a requirement for specialized equipment.
format Text
id pubmed-534099
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2004
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-5340992004-11-28 Comparison of frozen and RNALater solid tissue storage methods for use in RNA expression microarrays Mutter, George L Zahrieh, David Liu, Chunmei Neuberg, Donna Finkelstein, David Baker, Heather E Warrington, Janet A BMC Genomics Research Article BACKGROUND: Primary human tissues are an invaluable widely used tool for discovery of gene expression patterns which characterize disease states. Tissue processing methods remain unstandardized, leading to unanswered concerns of how to best store collected tissues and maintain reproducibility between laboratories. We subdivided uterine myometrial tissue specimens and stored split aliquots using the most common tissue processing methods (fresh, frozen, RNALater) before comparing quantitative RNA expression profiles on the Affymetrix U133 human expression array. Split samples and inclusion of duplicates within each processing group allowed us to undertake a formal genome-wide analysis comparing the magnitude of result variation contributed by sample source (different patients), processing protocol (fresh vs. frozen vs. 24 or 72 hours RNALater), and random background (duplicates). The dataset was randomly permuted to define a baseline pattern of ANOVA test statistic values against which the observed results could be interpreted. RESULTS: 14,639 of 22,283 genes were expressed in at least one sample. Patient subjects provided the greatest sources of variation in the mixed model ANOVA, with replicates and processing method the least. The magnitude of variation conferred by processing method (24 hours RNALater vs 72 hours RNALater vs. fresh vs frozen) was similar to the variability seen within replicates. Subset analysis of the test statistic according to gene functional class showed that the frequency of "outlier" ANOVA results within each functional class is overall no greater than expected by chance. CONCLUSIONS: Ambient storage of tissues for 24 or 72 hours in RNALater did not contribute any systematic shift in quantitative RNA expression results relative to the alternatives of fresh or frozen tissue. This nontoxic preservative enables decentralized tissue collection for expression array analysis without a requirement for specialized equipment. BioMed Central 2004-11-10 /pmc/articles/PMC534099/ /pubmed/15537428 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-5-88 Text en Copyright © 2004 Mutter et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Mutter, George L
Zahrieh, David
Liu, Chunmei
Neuberg, Donna
Finkelstein, David
Baker, Heather E
Warrington, Janet A
Comparison of frozen and RNALater solid tissue storage methods for use in RNA expression microarrays
title Comparison of frozen and RNALater solid tissue storage methods for use in RNA expression microarrays
title_full Comparison of frozen and RNALater solid tissue storage methods for use in RNA expression microarrays
title_fullStr Comparison of frozen and RNALater solid tissue storage methods for use in RNA expression microarrays
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of frozen and RNALater solid tissue storage methods for use in RNA expression microarrays
title_short Comparison of frozen and RNALater solid tissue storage methods for use in RNA expression microarrays
title_sort comparison of frozen and rnalater solid tissue storage methods for use in rna expression microarrays
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC534099/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15537428
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-5-88
work_keys_str_mv AT muttergeorgel comparisonoffrozenandrnalatersolidtissuestoragemethodsforuseinrnaexpressionmicroarrays
AT zahriehdavid comparisonoffrozenandrnalatersolidtissuestoragemethodsforuseinrnaexpressionmicroarrays
AT liuchunmei comparisonoffrozenandrnalatersolidtissuestoragemethodsforuseinrnaexpressionmicroarrays
AT neubergdonna comparisonoffrozenandrnalatersolidtissuestoragemethodsforuseinrnaexpressionmicroarrays
AT finkelsteindavid comparisonoffrozenandrnalatersolidtissuestoragemethodsforuseinrnaexpressionmicroarrays
AT bakerheathere comparisonoffrozenandrnalatersolidtissuestoragemethodsforuseinrnaexpressionmicroarrays
AT warringtonjaneta comparisonoffrozenandrnalatersolidtissuestoragemethodsforuseinrnaexpressionmicroarrays