↓ Skip to main content

Total RNA extraction from tissues for microRNA and target gene expression analysis: not all kits are created equal

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Biotechnology, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
91 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
264 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
Total RNA extraction from tissues for microRNA and target gene expression analysis: not all kits are created equal
Published in
BMC Biotechnology, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12896-018-0421-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rikki A. M. Brown, Michael R. Epis, Jessica L. Horsham, Tasnuva D. Kabir, Kirsty L. Richardson, Peter J. Leedman

Abstract

microRNAs (miRNAs) are short non-coding RNAs that fine-tune gene expression. The aberrant expression of miRNAs is associated with many diseases and they have both therapeutic and biomarker potential. However, our understanding of their usefulness is dependent on the tools we have to study them. Previous studies have identified the need to optimise and standardise RNA extraction methods in order to avoid biased results. Herein, we extracted RNA from murine lung, liver and brain tissues using five commercially available total RNA extraction methods. These included either: phenol: chloroform extraction followed by alcohol precipitation (TRIzol), phenol:chloroform followed by solid-phase extraction (column-based; miRVana and miRNeasy) and solid-phase separation with/without affinity resin (Norgen total and Isolate II). We then evaluated each extraction method for the quality and quantity of RNA recovered, and the expression of miRNAs and target genes. We identified differences between each of the RNA extraction methods in the quantity and quality of RNA samples, and in the analysis of miRNA and target gene expression. For the purposes of consistency in quantity, quality and high recovery of miRNAs from tissues, we identified that Phenol:chloroform phase separation combined with silica column-based solid extraction method was preferable (miRVana microRNA isolation). We also identified a method that is not appropriate for miRNA analysis from tissue samples (Bioline Isolate II). For target gene expression any of the kits could be used to analyse mRNA, but if interested in analysing mRNA and miRNA from the same RNA samples some methods should be avoided. Different methods used to isolate miRNAs will yield different results and therefore a robust RNA isolation method is required for reproducibility. Researchers should optimise these methods for their specific application and keep in mind that "total RNA" extraction methods do not isolate all types of RNA equally.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 264 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 264 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 44 17%
Student > Master 41 16%
Student > Bachelor 37 14%
Researcher 28 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 3%
Other 31 12%
Unknown 74 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 76 29%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 33 13%
Immunology and Microbiology 16 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 4%
Neuroscience 9 3%
Other 39 15%
Unknown 80 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 21 May 2021.
All research outputs
#6,814,253
of 23,028,364 outputs
Outputs from BMC Biotechnology
#382
of 939 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#119,567
of 333,153 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Biotechnology
#3
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,028,364 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 939 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 333,153 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.