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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |