MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3109758900 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0242404

Quality assessment of RNA in long-term storage: The All Our Families biorepository

2020· article· en· W3109758900 on OpenAlexafffund
Nikki Stephenson, Kylie K. Hornaday, Chelsea Doktorchik, Andrew W. Lyon, Suzanne Tough, Donna M. Slater

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMolecular Biology Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsSaskatchewan Health AuthorityUniversity of Calgary
FundersAlberta Children's Hospital FoundationAlberta InnovatesAlberta Innovates - Health SolutionsChildren's Hospital Foundation
KeywordsRNABiorepositoryPopulationCohortMedicineBiologyInternal medicineBioinformaticsGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The All Our Families (AOF) cohort study is a longitudinal population-based study which collected biological samples from 1948 pregnant women between May 2008 and December 2010. As the quality of samples can decline over time, the objective of the current study was to assess the association between storage time and RNA (ribonucleic acid) yield and purity, and confirm the quality of these samples after 7-10 years in long-term storage. METHODS: Maternal whole blood samples were previously collected by trained phlebotomists and stored in four separate PAXgene Blood RNA Tubes (PreAnalytiX) between 2008 and 2011. RNA was isolated in 2011 and 2018 using PAXgene Blood RNA Kits (PreAnalytiX) as per the manufacturer's instruction. RNA purity (260/280), as well as RNA yield, were measured using a Nanodrop. The RNA integrity number (RIN) was also assessed from 5-25 and 111-130 months of storage using RNA 6000 Nano Kit and Agilent 2100 BioAnalyzer. Descriptive statistics, paired t-test, and response feature analysis using linear regression were used to assess the association between various predictor variables and quality of the RNA isolated. RESULTS: Overall, RNA purity and yield of the samples did not decline over time. RNA purity of samples isolated in 2011 (2.08, 95% CI: 2.08-2.09) were statistically lower (p<0.000) than samples isolated in 2018 (2.101, 95% CI: 2.097, 2.104), and there was no statistical difference between the 2011 (13.08 μg /tube, 95% CI: 12.27-13.89) and 2018 (12.64 μg /tube, 95% CI: 11.83-13.46) RNA yield (p = 0.2964). For every month of storage, the change in RNA purity is -0.01(260/280), and the change in RNA yield between 2011 and 2018 is -0.90 μ g / tube. The mean RIN was 8.49 (95% CI:8.44-8.54), and it ranged from 7.2 to 9.5. The rate of change in expected RIN per month of storage is 0.003 (95% CI 0.002-0.004), so while statistically significant, these results are not relevant. CONCLUSIONS: RNA quality does not decrease over time, and the methods used to collect and store samples, within a population-based study are robust to inherent operational factors which may degrade sample quality over time.

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)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.139

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.272 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations13
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicMolecular Biology Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207