↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of blood RNA isolation methods from samples stabilized in Tempus tubes and stored at a large human biobank

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
45 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparison of blood RNA isolation methods from samples stabilized in Tempus tubes and stored at a large human biobank
Published in
BMC Research Notes, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13104-016-2224-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeanette Aarem, Gunnar Brunborg, Kaja K. Aas, Kari Harbak, Miia M. Taipale, Per Magnus, Gun Peggy Knudsen, Nur Duale

Abstract

More than 50,000 adult and cord blood samples were collected in Tempus tubes and stored at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health Biobank for future use. In this study, we systematically evaluated and compared five blood-RNA isolation protocols: three blood-RNA isolation protocols optimized for simultaneous isolation of all blood-RNA species (MagMAX RNA Isolation Kit, both manual and semi-automated protocols; and Norgen Preserved Blood RNA kit I); and two protocols optimized for large RNAs only (Tempus Spin RNA, and Tempus 6-port isolation kit). We estimated the following parameters: RNA quality, RNA yield, processing time, cost per sample, and RNA transcript stability of six selected mRNAs and 13 miRNAs using real-time qPCR. Whole blood samples from adults (n = 59 tubes) and umbilical cord blood (n = 18 tubes) samples collected in Tempus tubes were analyzed. High-quality blood-RNAs with average RIN-values above seven were extracted using all five RNA isolation protocols. The transcript levels of the six selected genes showed minimal variation between the five protocols. Unexplained differences within the transcript levels of the 13 miRNA were observed; however, the 13 miRNAs had similar expression direction and they were within the same order of magnitude. Some differences in the RNA processing time and cost were noted. Sufficient amounts of high-quality RNA were obtained using all five protocols, and the Tempus blood RNA system therefore seems not to be dependent on one specific RNA isolation method.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 45 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 24%
Student > Master 5 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 7%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 13 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Neuroscience 2 4%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 17 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 September 2016.
All research outputs
#20,340,423
of 22,886,568 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#3,565
of 4,270 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#294,422
of 337,400 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#62
of 76 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,886,568 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,270 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 337,400 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 76 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.