↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Biotechnology, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#21 of 959)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
9 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
183 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
A comparison of commercially-available automated and manual extraction kits for the isolation of total RNA from small tissue samples
Published in
BMC Biotechnology, November 2014
DOI 10.1186/s12896-014-0094-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marlo K Sellin Jeffries, Andor J Kiss, Austin W Smith, James T Oris

Abstract

BackgroundThis 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).ResultsWith the exception of embryos, each kit generally extracted ¿5 ¿g 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).ConclusionsEach 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users 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 183 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 1%
Chile 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 173 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 36 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 15%
Student > Bachelor 25 14%
Student > Master 21 11%
Other 11 6%
Other 22 12%
Unknown 40 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 55 30%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 46 25%
Immunology and Microbiology 9 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 5%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 4 2%
Other 18 10%
Unknown 42 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 28 May 2020.
All research outputs
#1,473,951
of 24,326,994 outputs
Outputs from BMC Biotechnology
#21
of 959 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,983
of 262,863 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Biotechnology
#1
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,326,994 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 959 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
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 262,863 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.