scholarly journals Small RNA Isolation from Tissues of Grapevine and Woody Plants

Author(s):  
Annalisa Giampetruzzi ◽  
Michela Chiumenti ◽  
Angelantonio Minafra ◽  
Pasquale Saldarelli
Keyword(s):  
2016 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ari Meerson ◽  
Thorkil Ploug

Growing interest in blood-borne microRNAs (miRNAs) as biomarkers has led to the introduction of a number of commercial kits for isolating small RNAs from plasma/serum. We sought to compare the efficacy of six such kits in isolating miRNAs from either whole plasma or a plasma-derived ultracentrifugation (UC) fraction from 2 healthy volunteers with some of the results being validated in 10 additional subjects. To assess the overall yield and concentration of isolated small RNAs, we measured the levels of one spiked-in and four endogenous miRNAs by quantitative reverse transcription and polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR). We also tested the performance of the Agilent Bioanalyzer small RNA assay with these RNA samples. Additionally, we tested the effects of hemolysis on measured miRNA levels in whole plasma and in the UC fraction. Both the efficiency of RNA isolation and the relative levels of specific miRNAs in different samples varied considerably between the tested extraction methods. Of all kits tested, the QIAGEN miRNeasy kits (Mini and Serum/Plasma kits) and the Macherey-Nagel NucleoSpin kit produced the highest RNA yields. The QIAGEN Exo kit produced lesser yields than what could be extracted from the UC fraction using the QIAGEN miRNeasy kits and the Macherey-Nagel NucleoSpin kit. Bioanalyzer results showed an average correlation of R2 = 0.8 with endogenous miRNA qRT-PCR results, for sample concentrations >40 pg/µl. The levels of the endogenous miRNAs measured in the two volunteer samples were compared with those in a larger group of subjects (n = 10) and found to be typical. Our comparison favors the use of the QIAGEN Serum/Plasma kit and the Macherey-Nagel NucleoSpin kit for plasma miRNA applications. Furthermore, extraction of miRNAs from the UC fraction results in higher yield than extraction from whole plasma.


BIO-PROTOCOL ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sukrit Silas ◽  
Nimit Jain ◽  
Michael Stadler ◽  
Becky Fu ◽  
Antonio Amat ◽  
...  

BMC Genomics ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yan Guo ◽  
Kasey Vickers ◽  
Yanhua Xiong ◽  
Shilin Zhao ◽  
Quanhu Sheng ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Berliana Hamidah ◽  
Ashon Sa'adi ◽  
Rina Yudiwati

The aim of this study is to learn about the choice of storage temperature for human sperm cells after sperm purification using somatic cell lysis buffer (SCLB) before sperm small ribonucleic acid (RNA) isolation and analysis. This study was true laboratory experiment using the post-test only control group design. The samples were 13 fresh human semen that has been purified using SCLB. The sperm cells then diluted and divided into four aliquots with different treatment. First aliquot that served as a control group was immediately purified while the last three aliquots were stored for 7 days at different temperature: 4oC, -20o, and -80oC. The small RNA yields between each group then compared after the small RNA isolation and measured using microvolume spectrophotometer. The small RNA yields of control group was 49.8 (5.33-522.46) ng/106 sperm cells. It wasn’t show any significant difference with the other groups of storage temperature: 4oC, -20o, and -80oC [41.09 (7.03-1448.31); 65.95 (7.99-301.16); 76.42 (10.45-434.25); p value 0.314] with p value > α (α = 5%). This condition shows that human sperm cells after sperm purification using SCLB can be stored at 4oC, -20o, or -80oC temperatures depends on each laboratory facilities.


Placenta ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 112 ◽  
pp. e31-e32
Author(s):  
Priyadarshini Pantham ◽  
Srimeenakshi Srinivasan ◽  
Peter DeHoff ◽  
Aishwarya Vuppala ◽  
Amber Morey ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 429 ◽  
pp. 39-49 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel E. Crossland ◽  
Jean Norden ◽  
Louis A. Bibby ◽  
Joanna Davis ◽  
Anne M. Dickinson

2018 ◽  
Vol 64 (7) ◽  
pp. 1085-1095 ◽  
Author(s):  
Feng Li ◽  
Karolina Elżbieta Kaczor-Urbanowicz ◽  
Jie Sun ◽  
Blanca Majem ◽  
Hsien-Chun Lo ◽  
...  

Abstract BACKGROUND It was recently discovered that abundant and stable extracellular RNA (exRNA) species exist in bodily fluids. Saliva is an emerging biofluid for biomarker development for noninvasive detection and screening of local and systemic diseases. Use of RNA-Sequencing (RNA-Seq) to profile exRNA is rapidly growing; however, no single preparation and analysis protocol can be used for all biofluids. Specifically, RNA-Seq of saliva is particularly challenging owing to high abundance of bacterial contents and low abundance of salivary exRNA. Given the laborious procedures needed for RNA-Seq library construction, sequencing, data storage, and data analysis, saliva-specific and optimized protocols are essential. METHODS We compared different RNA isolation methods and library construction kits for long and small RNA sequencing. The role of ribosomal RNA (rRNA) depletion also was evaluated. RESULTS The miRNeasy Micro Kit (Qiagen) showed the highest total RNA yield (70.8 ng/mL cell-free saliva) and best small RNA recovery, and the NEBNext library preparation kits resulted in the highest number of detected human genes [5649–6813 at 1 reads per kilobase RNA per million mapped (RPKM)] and small RNAs [482–696 microRNAs (miRNAs) and 190–214 other small RNAs]. The proportion of human RNA-Seq reads was much higher in rRNA-depleted saliva samples (41%) than in samples without rRNA depletion (14%). In addition, the transfer RNA (tRNA)-derived RNA fragments (tRFs), a novel class of small RNAs, were highly abundant in human saliva, specifically tRF-4 (4%) and tRF-5 (15.25%). CONCLUSIONS Our results may help in selection of the best adapted methods of RNA isolation and small and long RNA library constructions for salivary exRNA studies.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aniruddha Das ◽  
Debojyoti Das ◽  
Arundhati Das ◽  
Amaresh C. Panda

ABSTRACTCurrent RNA purification methods widely use silica-based columns that allow quick isolation of high quality and right quantities of RNA. However, the major limitations include high cost, the requirement of different kits for small RNA isolation, genomic DNA contamination, and not being flexible. Here, we used the in-house RNA isolation reagent for cell lysis, followed by precipitation of RNA using isopropanol resulted in a similar quantity and quality of RNA compared to the commercial TRIzol. The commercial RNA isolation kits with silica-based columns recommend genomic DNA digestion during or after RNA purification adding time and cost to RNA purification. Here, we developed an optimized in-house protocol for isolating high-quality RNA free of genomic DNA contamination using magnetic silica beads without the need for DNase digestion. Additionally, our method purifies total RNA along with the small RNA fraction, including miRNAs, which usually require a separate kit for extraction. Additionally, the RNA prepared with our method was equally suitable for mRNA and miRNA expression analysis using RT-qPCR. Together, the in-house method of RNA isolation using a magnetic bead exhibited comparable or better total RNA extraction compared to commercial kits at a fraction of the cost and across various cells and tissues.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document