Back

Measuring up: A Comparison of Tapestation 4200 and Bioanalyzer 2100 as Measurement Tools for RNA Quality in Postmortem Human Brain Samples

Walker, J. E.; Oliver, J. C.; Stewart, A. M.; Beh, S. T.; Arce, R. A.; Glass, M. J.; Vargas, D. E.; Qiji, S. H.; Intorcia, A. J.; Borja, C. I.; Cline, M. P.; Hemmingsen, S. J.; Krupp, A. N.; McHattie, R. D.; Mariner, M. R.; Lorenzini, I.; Aslam, S.; Tremblay, C.; Beach, T. G.; Serrano, G. G.

2023-07-06 pathology
10.1101/2023.07.03.23291969 medRxiv
Show abstract

Determining RNA integrity is a critical quality assessment tool for gene expression studies where the experiments success is highly dependent on sample quality. Since its introduction in 1999, the gold standard in the scientific community has been the Agilent 2100 Bioanalyzers RNA Integrity Number (RIN) which uses a 1-10 value system with 1 being the most degraded to 10 being the most intact. In 2015, Agilent launched the 4200 Tapestations RIN equivalent and reported a strong correlation of r2 of 0.936 and median error < {+/-} 0.4 RIN units. To evaluate this claim, we compared the Agilent 4200 Tapestations RIN equivalent (RINe) and DV200 to the Agilent 2100 Bioanalyzers RIN for 183 parallel RNA samples. In our study, using RNA from a total of 183 human postmortem brain samples, we found that the RIN and RINe values only weakly correlate with an r2 of 0.393 and an average difference of 3.2 RIN units. DV200 also only weakly correlated with RIN (r2 of 0.182) and RINe (r2 of 0.347). Finally, when applying a cut-off value of 6.5 for both metrics, we found that 95.6% of samples passed with RIN, while only 23.5% passed with RINe. Our results suggest that even though RIN (Bioanalyzer) and RINe (Tapestation) use the same 1-10 value system, they should not be used interchangeably, and cut-off values should be calculated independently.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
BioTechniques
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
15.5%
2
F1000Research
88 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.9%
3
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 18%
9.9%
4
Biology Methods and Protocols
61 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.1%
5
RNA Biology
78 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.4%
50% of probability mass above
6
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 19%
5.0%
7
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
494 papers in training set
Top 2%
4.2%
8
Journal of Immunological Methods
24 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.3%
9
Gene
46 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.9%
10
Current Protocols
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.2%
11
Frontiers in Genetics
230 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.0%
12
Metabolomics
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.1%
13
BMC Genomics
406 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.1%
14
GigaScience
212 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.1%
15
Journal of Clinical Pathology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.1%
16
Molecular Biology Reports
21 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.0%
17
iScience
1154 papers in training set
Top 30%
1.0%
18
Journal of Visualized Experiments
34 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
19
Diagnostics
50 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
20
Analytical Chemistry
218 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
21
Biochemistry and Biophysics Reports
30 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
22
Poultry Science
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.6%
23
Genome Biology
637 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.6%
24
RNA
189 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
25
BMC Bioinformatics
457 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.6%
26
Nanoscale
42 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.6%