MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2980748449 · doi:10.1016/j.mex.2019.10.015

Inappropriateness of RNAlater to preserve Caenorhabditis elegans for RNA extraction

2019· article· en· W2980748449 on OpenAlexafffund
Leming Jiang, Linyan Li, Ping Kang, Hai Yu, Shaoping Nie, Mingyong Xie, Joshua Gong

Bibliographic record

VenueMethodsX · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model Organisms
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsTrizolCaenorhabditis elegansRNARNA extractionExtraction (chemistry)LysisProteinase KBiologyLysis bufferCell biologyGeneChemistryEnzymeBiochemistryChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Caenorhabditis elegans is a well-established laboratory animal model and has been widely used in biological research. However, it is still a challenge to obtain a good amount of quality RNA from a limited number of C. elegans for gene expression studies. To address this issue, the present study has compared different conditions to preserve C. elegans for RNA extraction after the failure of an initial effort to use RNAlater-preserved worms for RNA extraction. The effects of different concentrations of proteinase K, different worm life stages, and different worm numbers on RNA extraction were also investigated. The best results were achieved under the following conditions: 1) adult worms that were either freshly prepared or quickly frozen in liquid nitrogen followed by storage at −80 °C; 2) disruption of C. elegans with proteinase K (1 mg/mL) in a lysis buffer (65 °C for 10 min) prior to extraction with Trizol agent. This method can provide a stable, rapid, and effective means to extract RNA from C. elegans with variable worm numbers from 20 to 200. •RNAlater was inappropriate for preserving C. elegans for effective RNA extraction. •Proteinase K was verified for lysing a limited number of C. elegans for RNA extraction.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Citations9
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMethodsXSame topicGenetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model OrganismsFrench-language works237,207