RNA and DNA Integrity Remain Stable in Frozen Tissue After Long-Term Storage at Cryogenic Temperatures: A Report from the Ontario Tumour Bank
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: It is widely assumed that the integrity of tissue specimens remains stable indefinitely if preserved at cryogenic temperatures. With biobanking reaching a level of maturity where samples are increasingly stored for 10 years and beyond, this assumption of prolonged stability should be tested. Data from such an assessment are critical to verify if samples stored for extended durations remain “fit for purpose” or if there is need to reconsider the utility of samples stored beyond a certain timeframe. The Ontario Tumour Bank has been collecting samples since 2004, and assesses a random selection of frozen samples each year for RNA and DNA integrity as a part of ongoing quality control (QC) practices. This historical quality assessment data provide a unique opportunity to assess the impact of extended storage on nucleic acid integrity using replicate samples that remain in the bank in the present day as comparators. Methods: To examine the stability of fresh-frozen tumor tissue stored at cryogenic temperatures, RNA was extracted and analyzed from 87 cases over 14 disease sites stored long term in vapor-phase liquid nitrogen (LN2) (approximately −180°C). Historical QC data were compared against new data after re-extraction of replicate samples to determine the effect of extended storage on RNA quality. In addition, DNA was extracted from a subselection of samples ( n = 20) to determine the effect of prolonged storage on DNA integrity. Results: No time-dependent decrease in tissue RNA or DNA quality, as measured by RNA integrity number (RIN) and DNA integrity number, was observed over an 11-year period. As a secondary observation, RNA integrity was not predictive of DNA integrity: DNA quality may still be very good, and as such RIN scores should not be used as a substitute indicator for evaluating DNA. Conclusions: Extended cryogenic storage beyond 2–11 years remains a viable option for maintaining the high quality of specimens in biobanks.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".