L M Wolfe1, R D Thiagarajan1, F Boscolo2, V Taché3, R L Coleman4, J Kim5, W K Kwan1, J F Loring4, M Parast5, L C Laurent6. 1. Department of Reproductive Medicine, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA 92103, USA. 2. Department of Reproductive Medicine, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA 92103, USA; Department of Chemical Physiology, Center for Regenerative Medicine, The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, CA 92037, USA. 3. Department of Reproductive Medicine, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA 92103, USA; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, University of California Davis, Sacramento, CA 95817, USA. 4. Department of Chemical Physiology, Center for Regenerative Medicine, The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, CA 92037, USA. 5. Department of Pathology, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA 92103, USA. 6. Department of Reproductive Medicine, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA 92103, USA. Electronic address: louise.laurent@gmail.com.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Banking of high-quality placental tissue specimens will enable biomarker discovery and molecular studies on diseases involving placental dysfunction. Systematic studies aimed at developing feasible standardized methodology for placental collection in a typical clinical setting are lacking. METHODS: To determine the acceptable timeframe for placental collection, we collected multiple samples from first and third trimester placentas at serial timepoints in a 2-h window after delivery, simultaneously comparing the traditional snap-freeze technique to commercial solutions designed to preserve RNA (RNAlater™), and DNA (DNAgard(®)). The performance of RNAlater for preserving DNA was also tested. Nucleic acid quality was assessed by determining the RNA integrity number (RIN) and genome-wide microarray profiling for gene expression and DNA methylation. RESULTS: We found that samples collected in RNAlater had higher and more consistent RINs compared to snap-frozen tissue. Similar RINs were obtained for tissue collected in RNAlater as large (1 cm(3)) and small (∼0.1 cm(3)) pieces. RNAlater appeared to better stabilize the time zero gene expression profile compared to snap-freezing for first trimester placenta. DNA methylation profiles remained quite stable over a 2 h time period after removal of the placenta from the uterus, with DNAgard being superior to other treatments. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The collection of placental samples in RNAlater and DNAgard is simple, and eliminates the need for liquid nitrogen or a freezer on-site. Moreover, the quality of the nucleic acids and the resulting data from samples collected in these preservation solutions is higher than samples collected using the snap-freeze method and easier to implement in busy clinical environments.
INTRODUCTION: Banking of high-quality placental tissue specimens will enable biomarker discovery and molecular studies on diseases involving placental dysfunction. Systematic studies aimed at developing feasible standardized methodology for placental collection in a typical clinical setting are lacking. METHODS: To determine the acceptable timeframe for placental collection, we collected multiple samples from first and third trimester placentas at serial timepoints in a 2-h window after delivery, simultaneously comparing the traditional snap-freeze technique to commercial solutions designed to preserve RNA (RNAlater™), and DNA (DNAgard(®)). The performance of RNAlater for preserving DNA was also tested. Nucleic acid quality was assessed by determining the RNA integrity number (RIN) and genome-wide microarray profiling for gene expression and DNA methylation. RESULTS: We found that samples collected in RNAlater had higher and more consistent RINs compared to snap-frozen tissue. Similar RINs were obtained for tissue collected in RNAlater as large (1 cm(3)) and small (∼0.1 cm(3)) pieces. RNAlater appeared to better stabilize the time zero gene expression profile compared to snap-freezing for first trimester placenta. DNA methylation profiles remained quite stable over a 2 h time period after removal of the placenta from the uterus, with DNAgard being superior to other treatments. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The collection of placental samples in RNAlater and DNAgard is simple, and eliminates the need for liquid nitrogen or a freezer on-site. Moreover, the quality of the nucleic acids and the resulting data from samples collected in these preservation solutions is higher than samples collected using the snap-freeze method and easier to implement in busy clinical environments.
Authors: Christopher L Howerton; Christopher P Morgan; David B Fischer; Tracy L Bale Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2013-03-04 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: G J Burton; N J Sebire; L Myatt; D Tannetta; Y-L Wang; Y Sadovsky; A C Staff; C W Redman Journal: Placenta Date: 2013-11-19 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Anastasia V Suhovskih; Galina M Kazanskaya; Alexander M Volkov; Alexandra Y Tsidulko; Svetlana V Aidagulova; Elvira V Grigorieva Journal: Histochem Cell Biol Date: 2019-06-14 Impact factor: 4.304
Authors: Nicole M Martin; Katherine M Cooke; Caitlin C Radford; Lauren E Perley; Michelle Silasi; Clare A Flannery Journal: Am J Reprod Immunol Date: 2017-01-31 Impact factor: 3.886
Authors: Alexa A Freedman; Britney P Smart; Lauren S Keenan-Devlin; Janedelie Romero; Andrew Franklin; Ann Borders; Linda M Ernst; Gregory E Miller Journal: Am J Reprod Immunol Date: 2021-06-03 Impact factor: 3.777
Authors: Serene M L Lee; Celine Schelcher; Reinhard Thasler; Tobias S Schiergens; Wolfgang E Thasler Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-09-15 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Maya A Kappil; Qian Li; An Li; Priyanthi S Dassanayake; Yulin Xia; Jessica A Nanes; Philip J Landrigan; Christopher J Stodgell; Kjersti M Aagaard; Eric E Schadt; Nancy Dole; Michael Varner; John Moye; Carol Kasten; Richard K Miller; Yula Ma; Jia Chen; Luca Lambertini Journal: Environ Epigenet Date: 2016-02-10
Authors: Jessica Schuster; Alper Uzun; Joan Stablia; Christoph Schorl; Mari Mori; James F Padbury Journal: BMC Med Genet Date: 2019-06-28 Impact factor: 2.103
Authors: Alejandra Perez-Sepulveda; Lara J Monteiro; Aneta Dobierzewska; Pedro P España-Perrot; Pía Venegas-Araneda; Alejandra M Guzmán-Rojas; María I González; Macarena Palominos-Rivera; Carlos E Irarrazabal; Horacio Figueroa-Diesel; Manuel Varas-Godoy; Sebastián E Illanes Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-10-07 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Lindsey A Sjaarda; Katherine A Ahrens; Daniel L Kuhr; Tiffany L Holland; Ukpebo R Omosigho; Brian T Steffen; Natalie L Weir; Hannah K Tollman; Robert M Silver; Michael Y Tsai; Enrique F Schisterman Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-05-11 Impact factor: 3.240