MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094729803 · doi:10.3791/2763

DNA Extraction from Paraffin Embedded Material for Genetic and Epigenetic Analyses

2011· article· en· W2094729803 on OpenAlexafffund
Larissa A. Pikor, Katey S.S. Enfield, Cameron Heryet, Wan L. Lam

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Visualized Experiments · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMolecular Biology Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer AgencyOccupational Cancer Research CentreUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsDNA extractionLysis bufferDNA microarrayDNABiologyProteinase KNucleic acidLysisEpigeneticsDNA methylationSodium dodecyl sulfateMolecular biologyPolymerase chain reactionChromatographyGeneChemistryBiochemistryGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Disease development and progression are characterized by frequent genetic and epigenetic aberrations including chromosomal rearrangements, copy number gains and losses and DNA methylation. Advances in high-throughput, genome-wide profiling technologies, such as microarrays, have significantly improved our ability to identify and detect these specific alterations. However as technology continues to improve, a limiting factor remains sample quality and availability. Furthermore, follow-up clinical information and disease outcome are often collected years after the initial specimen collection. Specimens, typically formalin-fixed and paraffin embedded (FFPE), are stored in hospital archives for years to decades. DNA can be efficiently and effectively recovered from paraffin-embedded specimens if the appropriate method of extraction is applied. High quality DNA extracted from properly preserved and stored specimens can support quantitative assays for comparisons of normal and diseased tissues and generation of genetic and epigenetic signatures (1). To extract DNA from paraffin-embedded samples, tissue cores or microdissected tissue are subjected to xylene treatment, which dissolves the paraffin from the tissue, and then rehydrated using a series of ethanol washes. Proteins and harmful enzymes such as nucleases are subsequently digested by proteinase K. The addition of lysis buffer, which contains denaturing agents such as sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS), facilitates digestion (2). Nucleic acids are purified from the tissue lysate using buffer-saturated phenol and high speed centrifugation which generates a biphasic solution. DNA and RNA remain in the upper aqueous phase, while proteins, lipids and polysaccharides are sequestered in the inter- and organic-phases respectively. Retention of the aqueous phase and repeated phenol extractions generates a clean sample. Following phenol extractions, RNase A is added to eliminate contaminating RNA. Additional phenol extractions following incubation with RNase A are used to remove any remaining enzyme. The addition of sodium acetate and isopropanol precipitates DNA, and high speed centrifugation is used to pellet the DNA and facilitate isopropanol removal. Excess salts carried over from precipitation can interfere with subsequent enzymatic assays, but can be removed from the DNA by washing with 70% ethanol, followed by centrifugation to re-pellet the DNA (3). DNA is re-suspended in distilled water or the buffer of choice, quantified and stored at -20°C. Purified DNA can subsequently be used in downstream applications which include, but are not limited to, PCR, array comparative genomic hybridization (4) (array CGH), methylated DNA Immunoprecipitation (MeDIP) and sequencing, allowing for an integrative analysis of tissue/tumor samples.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.123

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0080.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0370.033

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.397 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations131
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Visualized ExperimentsSame topicMolecular Biology Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207