| Literature DB >> 31681781 |
Ligia Craciun1,2, Selim Alex Spinette1,2, Marc Rassy2, Roberto Salgado2, Alexandre de Wind2, Pieter Demetter2, Laurine Verset2, Maria Gomez-Galdon2, Marie Chintinne2, Nicolas Sirtaine2, Nicolas de St Aubain2, Ioanna Laios2, Francoise Roy2, Denis Larsimont1,2.
Abstract
Introduction: Tumor banks make a considerable contribution to translational research. Using emerging molecular tests on frozen material facilitates the development of new diagnostic and therapeutic strategies, especially in rare cases. However, standard quality control schemes are lacking in the current literature.Entities:
Keywords: DNA; RNA; biobank; electrophoretic integrity; morphology; quality control; quality scores
Year: 2019 PMID: 31681781 PMCID: PMC6811598 DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2019.00225
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) ISSN: 2296-858X
Electrophoresis integrity (EI) quality scores.
| Bad | 1.2–1.4 | Smear of 2 kb | 1 |
| Poor | 1.4–1.6 | Smear of 5 kb | 2 |
| Good | 1.6–1.8 | Smear of 10 kb | 3 |
| Very good | 1.8–2.1 | Single band of high molecular weight | 4 |
RNA purity and integrity score attribution based on 260/280 OD Ratio and RIN.
| Bad | 1.2–1.4 | 1–4 | 1 |
| Poor | 1.4–1.6 | 1–4 | 2 |
| Good | 1.6–1.8 | 4.1–6.9 | 3 |
| Very good | 1.8–2.1 | 7.0–10.0 | 4 |
Visual evaluation of specificity and intensity of the IHC staining.
| Bad | Low specificity/Low intensity | 1 |
| Poor | Low specificity/Moderate intensity | 2 |
| Good | Moderate specificity/Moderate intensity | 3 |
| Very good | high specificity/High intensity | 4 |
Figure 1Electrophoretic analysis of genomic DNA from biobanked frozen tumor samples. DNA (5 μL) was loaded on a 2% agarose gel and visualized by ethidium bromide staining. The gel shows the result of 10 representative samples. Compact bands of DNA were observed for all samples at a high molecular weight according to the ladder. The absence of smearing favors the absence of DNA degradation.
Figure 2Representative electropherogram for different RIN classes. 1 μL of sample RNA was charged in the microfabricated chips. (A) RIN = 10, from one representative sample classified as score 4; the different regions (pre-, 5S-, fast-, inter-, precursor-, post-region) and peaks (marker, 18S, 28S) are correctly presented. (B) RIN = 5.9, from one representative sample classified as score 3; intermediate peaks appear on the zone 5S and fast-regions, pointing to RNA degradation. (C) RIN = 3, from one representative sample classified as score 2; peaks of ribosomal subunits, 18S and 28S, are absent.
Figure 3Frozen breast tumor sample. (A) Hematoxylin/eosin staining (30x); (B) ER IHC staining; (C) Her2 IHC staining. The tumor was characterized as ductal carcinoma, ER/Her2 positive, by the pathologist in 2001 and confirmed on the 16-year-old frozen sample. The pathologist evaluation is based on four criteria: the intensity of staining, the percentage of positive cells, background, and the localization of hybridized antibody (membrane, cytoplasm).
Summary of the IHC scores assigned to samples of the study cohort based on the visual evaluation.
| Her2 | 64 | 31 | 5 | 0 |
| ER | 57 | 33 | 10 | 0 |
| Ki67 | 82 | 16 | 0 | 2 |
Suggested molecular biology applications based on the value of the RIN.
| 1–4 | PCR Amplification of small fragments |
| 4.1–6.9 | qRT-PCR applications |
| 7.0–10.0 | Any application evaluating gene expression |