Back

Optimizing nucleic acid extraction and transcriptome evaluation from low-input, fixed clinical samples

Campbell, K. M.; Medina, E.; Baselga Carretero, I.; Teper, Y.; Elumalai, R.; Miller, R.; Pal, K.; Pitzer, J.; Daviso, E.; Carstens, C.; Laugharn, J.; Hugo, W.; Chen, J. M.; Vega-Crespo, A.; Jilani, S.; Garcilazo, I. P.; Dong, L.; Li, X.; Hu-Lieskovan, S.; Ribas, A.

2020-06-03 genomics
10.1101/2020.06.02.122150 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Tumor biopsies are commonly formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded (FFPE) for long-term and efficient storage. However, FFPE preservation can greatly compromise the quality of samples, the extraction of nucleic acids, and feasibility of downstream studies, including RNA sequencing. These challenges are especially evident in the studies of clinical trial samples, where the sizes of biopsies often limit the amount of material available for study. Here, we evaluate two nucleic acid extraction kits (Covaris truXTRAC FFPE tNA Plus, QIAGEN miRNeasy FFPE) and three hybridized-capture-based RNA sequencing library preparations (Agilent SureSelect XT RNA Direct, Agilent SureSelect XT HS, and Illumina TruSeq RNA Exome) to evaluate the impact of these sample processing steps on transcriptome evaluation in a melanoma biopsy procured in a clinical setting and preserved by FFPE. While there exist many options for extraction and library preparation that are appropriate for RNA sequencing from FFPE samples, we observed that combinations of experimental approaches may have subtle impacts on downstream analysis, including gene expression quantification and fusion detection.

Matching journals

The top 10 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.