BACKGROUND: RNA from sorted cell populations is crucial in many instances. We therefore compared four current protocols for RNA isolation, with regard to mRNA yield and purity. Moreover, we examined the effects on RNA recovery caused by different storage reagents. METHODS: Small populations of K562 cells or PMBC were sorted into the lysing reagent and subjected to RNA extraction, employing either phase separation extraction using an acidic guanidinium-isothiocyanate reagent (TriFast reagent), the silica-gel membrane-based spin-column technology (RNeasy Mini-/Micro-Kit), or the isolation via paramagnetic oligo(d)T-beads (microMACS). Cells designated for delayed RNA isolation were kept either in RNAlater, Qiagen Buffer RLT, TriFast or PrepProtect, or simply frozen after pelleting from PBS. The mRNA yield was determined by quantitative RT-PCR. RESULTS: Performing unpaired two-tailed t-tests revealed that RNA was extracted in significantly higher amounts using magnetic bead isolation. This method also allowed best discrimination of induced IL2 gene expression. In contrast, phase separation extraction showed the highest rate of failures. Intermediate storage reduced RNA yield. Contamination by genomic DNA was detected in several samples subjected to phase separation or silica-gel membrane-based spin-column extraction. CONCLUSIONS: Our results reveal advantages and disadvantages of RNA isolation procedures for small numbers of sorted cells and, therefore, facilitate the decision for the most appropriate protocol in a particular experimental context.
BACKGROUND: RNA from sorted cell populations is crucial in many instances. We therefore compared four current protocols for RNA isolation, with regard to mRNA yield and purity. Moreover, we examined the effects on RNA recovery caused by different storage reagents. METHODS: Small populations of K562 cells or PMBC were sorted into the lysing reagent and subjected to RNA extraction, employing either phase separation extraction using an acidic guanidinium-isothiocyanate reagent (TriFast reagent), the silica-gel membrane-based spin-column technology (RNeasy Mini-/Micro-Kit), or the isolation via paramagnetic oligo(d)T-beads (microMACS). Cells designated for delayed RNA isolation were kept either in RNAlater, Qiagen Buffer RLT, TriFast or PrepProtect, or simply frozen after pelleting from PBS. The mRNA yield was determined by quantitative RT-PCR. RESULTS: Performing unpaired two-tailed t-tests revealed that RNA was extracted in significantly higher amounts using magnetic bead isolation. This method also allowed best discrimination of induced IL2 gene expression. In contrast, phase separation extraction showed the highest rate of failures. Intermediate storage reduced RNA yield. Contamination by genomic DNA was detected in several samples subjected to phase separation or silica-gel membrane-based spin-column extraction. CONCLUSIONS: Our results reveal advantages and disadvantages of RNA isolation procedures for small numbers of sorted cells and, therefore, facilitate the decision for the most appropriate protocol in a particular experimental context.
Authors: Bikul Das; Suely S Kashino; Ista Pulu; Deepjyoti Kalita; Vijay Swami; Herman Yeger; Dean W Felsher; Antonio Campos-Neto Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2013-01-30 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Kim Steve Bergkvist; Mette Nyegaard; Martin Bøgsted; Alexander Schmitz; Julie Støve Bødker; Simon Mylius Rasmussen; Martin Perez-Andres; Steffen Falgreen; Anders Ellern Bilgrau; Malene Krag Kjeldsen; Michael Gaihede; Martin Agge Nørgaard; John Bæch; Marie-Louise Grønholdt; Frank Svendsen Jensen; Preben Johansen; Karen Dybkær; Hans Erik Johnsen Journal: BMC Immunol Date: 2014-01-31 Impact factor: 3.615
Authors: Antonino Glaviano; Andrew J Smith; Alfonso Blanco; Sarah McLoughlin; Maria L Cederlund; Theresa Heffernan; Beata Sapetto-Rebow; Yolanda Alvarez; Jun Yin; Breandán N Kennedy Journal: BMC Neurosci Date: 2016-11-07 Impact factor: 3.288
Authors: Antonio Rodríguez; Hans Duyvejonck; Jonas D Van Belleghem; Tessa Gryp; Leen Van Simaey; Stefan Vermeulen; Els Van Mechelen; Mario Vaneechoutte Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-02-21 Impact factor: 3.240