Nucleic acid extraction from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded cancer cell line samples: a trade off between quantity and quality?

Abstract

BackgroundAdvanced genomic techniques such as Next-Generation-Sequencing (NGS) and gene expression profiling, including NanoString, are vital for the development of personalised medicines, as they enable molecular disease classification. This has become increasingly important in the treatment of cancer, aiding patient selection. However, it requires efficient nucleic acid extraction often from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue (FFPE).MethodsHere we provide a comparison of several commercially available manual and automated methods for DNA and/or RNA extraction from FFPE cancer cell line samples from Qiagen, life Technologies and Promega. Differing extraction geometric mean yields were evaluated across each of the kits tested, assessing dual DNA/RNA extraction vs. specialised single extraction, manual silica column based extraction techniques vs. automated magnetic bead based methods along with a comparison of subsequent nucleic acid purity methods, providing a full evaluation of nucleic acids isolated.ResultsOut of the four RNA extraction kits evaluated the RNeasy FFPE kit, from Qiagen, gave superior geometric mean yields, whilst the Maxwell 16 automated method, from Promega, yielded the highest quality RNA by quantitative real time RT-PCR. Of the DNA extraction kits evaluated the PicoPure DNA kit, from Life Technologies, isolated 2–14× more DNA. A miniaturised qPCR assay was developed for DNA quantification and quality assessment.ConclusionsCareful consideration of an extraction kit is necessary dependent on quality or quantity of material required. Here we provide a flow diagram on the factors to consider when choosing an extraction kit as well as how to accurately quantify and QC the extracted material.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12907-016-0039-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Extensive Changes in Transcriptomic “Fingerprints” and Immunological Cells in the Large Organs of Patients Dying of Acute Septic Shock and Multiple Organ Failure Caused by Neisseria meningitidis

“…The quality control of isolated RNA (Boeckx et al, 2011;Ludyga et al, 2012;Seiler et al, 2016) from all the tissue samples in this study showed RNA integrity numbers (RIN) ≥1.9. The FFPE tissue samples ranged from 1.9 to 2-6 while the RIN of FF tissue samples ranged from 2 to 8.5.…”

Suitability of melanoma FFPE samples for NGS libraries: time and quality thresholds for downstream molecular tests

“…Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) samples represent a valuable under-exploited resource for large, retrospective and prospective studies with long-term clinical follow-up [1]. The existence of FFPE samples collections worldwide, and their advantages such as easy handling, long-term inexpensive storage, suitability for immunohistochemical analyses, and low-cost of large-scale application, make this type of storage a relevant option [2].…”

Comparison of skin biopsy sample processing and storage methods on high dimensional immune gene expression using the Nanostring nCounter system

“…Variation in RNA quality results in inaccurate and misleading changes in molecular profiling, underpinning the need for reliable and reproducible protocols for the processing of tissue and extraction of RNA [10]. Numerous studies have compared extraction kits for the isolation of nucleic acids from FFPE tissue, with key factors to consider listed for researchers prior to undertaking experimental processes [1,11]. While DNA/RNA Shield yielded similar quality scores to RNA extracted from FFPE tissue, there was substantial variation in the total yield of RNA.…”