Impact of commercial RNA extraction methods on the recovery of human RNA sequence data from archival fixed tissues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Archival fixed tissues hold key insights into the evolutionary history of RNA viruses and the associated host immune response, yet access to the RNA sequence data is limited by a lack of robust methods for RNA extraction and sequence retrieval from these tissue types. Here we compared three commercial RNA extraction techniques (bead, column, and phase-based) on five fixed human brain tissues done in triplicate, that have been stored for up to 43 years. We found that for this sample set, bead-based extractions captured longer molecules and yielded a greater proportion of unique reads when aligned to the human genome, than did column and phase-based extraction methods. Via the incorporation of multiple extraction replicates, we quantified the variability in sequencing metrics resulting from tissue sample and extraction technique heterogeneity. Additionally, we compared pre- and post-sequencing metrics and found that the former poorly predicted post-sequencing on-target success. Our findings help inform future research on the recovery of RNA from archival fixed tissues.
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 | 0.001 | 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".