ArticleGenes2025
The Interference of RNA Preservative and Post-Collection Interval on RNA Integrity from Different Mice Tissues.
Article in Genes, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFor precise and reliable gene expression analysis, the acquisition of high-quality RNA is contingent upon excellent tissue preparation and handling. The optimal method for preserving tissues after surgical resection remains challenging due to the delays in delivery or the absence of cold storage equipment. Although RNAlater has been extensively adopted for tissue preservation, few studies have systematically evaluated the effects of various tissue preservation solutions and post-collection intervals on RNA integrity across a range of tissue types.
methodsTen types of mouse tissues, representing common tissue species in biobanks, were collected after resection. Tissues were either flash-frozen in liquid nitrogen as controls or immersed in one of three RNA preservatives-TRIzol and two commercial RNAlater solutions-and stored at room temperature (RT) for 0, 4, or 8 h before being frozen. Total RNA was extracted using TRIzol method, and its integrity was assessed using the RNA Integrity Number (RIN).
resultsThe results indicated that both the post-collection interval and the type of RNA preservative significantly impact RNA integrity. Pancreatic tissue showed the poorest RNA integrity (RIN < 5.5), whereas heart and ovary tissue yielded high-quality RNA (RIN > 7) even without any preservatives after 8 h at RT. To maintain baseline RNA integrity (RIN > 5.5), tissues including brain, kidney, muscle, liver, intestine, and uterus should be immersed in preservative and frozen within 8 h. For lung tissue preserved in RNAlater, the maximum recommended time at RT was 4 h.
conclusionsRobust, high-quality RNA can be obtained from most mouse tissues stored in RNA preservatives for up to 8 h at RT, with only minor variations observed across the different preservatives tested.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.