Quality affecting factors of RNA – its assessment and influence on PCR reactions

Sheethel Kunnath Poovakka¹ , Durga Ramadas² , Gouri Ramadas³ , Deepak Roshan VG⁴

Section:Research Paper, Product Type: Isroset-Journal
Vol.5 , Issue.6 , pp.127-134, Dec-2018

CrossRef-DOI:   https://doi.org/10.26438/ijsrbs/v5i6.127134

Online published on Jan 01, 2018

Copyright © Sheethel Kunnath Poovakka, Durga Ramadas, Gouri Ramadas, Deepak Roshan VG . This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
 

View this paper at   Google Scholar | DPI Digital Library

XML View     PDF Download

How to Cite this Paper

1946 Views    453 Downloads    185 Downloads

Abstract :
Good quality of RNA is the prime concern in molecular biology research works and clinical diagnosis. Different organic solvents and salt are used for RNA-isolation. Presence of different organic solvents like phenol, trizol, chloroform, isopropanol, ethanol and salt like EDTA in RNA may affect the downstream processes. The effect of these different organic solvents and EDTA on the quality /integrity of RNA and its effect on qualitative and qPCR has been evaluated in our study. We have found that the trace contamination with phenol and trizol in isolated RNA has inhibited the qPCR and its contamination in RNA cannot be identified merely by inspecting the A260:A280 and A260:A230 ratios. However, by evaluating the absorbance peak-pattern using UV absorbance between 220-340 nm, we can differentiate phenol/trizol contaminated RNA. Also, an overestimation (4-200 fold) of nucleic acid was observed for phenol and trizol-treated RNA in our study. Absorbance peak-pattern variations could only identify higher concentrations of EDTA in RNA, but for lower concentrations, it remains undetectable and higher concentrations of EDTA in RNA have shown to inhibit real-time PCR and alter the Ct value at its lower concentration. RNA contaminated with ethanol, isopropanol, chloroform cannot be distinguished even from the peak-pattern analysis and the UV-absorbance ratios. Higher concentration of alcohol decreased the PCR efficiency by huge variation in Ct values whereas lower concentrations did not show much effect. Surprisingly, the RNA integrity on agarose gel remained intact with all the organic solvents and EDTA-treated RNA.

Key-Words / Index Term :
RNA integrity, Real time PCR, Basic Molecular Biology, Clinical Diagnostics, Transcriptomic Analysis

References :
REFERENCES
[1] KL. Manchester,“Value of A260/A280 ratios for measurement of purity of nucleic acids”, Biotechniques, Vol.19, No.2, pp.208-210, 1995.
[2] AR. Wolfe and T. Meehan, “The effect of sodium ion concentration on intrastrand base-pairing in single-stranded DNA”, Nucleic acids research, Vol.22, No.15, pp.3147-3150, 1994.
[3] JA. Glasel, “Validity of nucleic acid purities monitored by 260nm/280nm absorbance ratios”, Biotechniques, Vol.18, No.1, pp.62-63, 1995.
[4] J. Sambrook, EF. Fritsch, T. Maniatis, “Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual”, 2nd edition, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, New York, 1989.
[5] S. Imbeaud, E. Graudens, V. Boulanger, X. Barlet, P. Zaborski, E. Eveno, O. Mueller, A. Schroeder and C. Auffray, “Towards standardization of RNA quality assessment using user-independent classifiers of microcapillary electrophoresis traces”, Nucleic acids research, Vol.33, No.6, pp.e56-e56, 2005.
[6] KL. Manchester, “Use of UV methods for measurement of protein and nucleic acid concentrations”,Biotechniques, Vol.20, No.6, pp.968-970, 1996.
[7] SR. Gallagher, “Quantitation of DNA and RNA with absorption and fluorescence spectroscopy”, Current Protocols in Human Genetics, Vol.1, A-3D, 1994.
[8] P. Desjardins and D. Conklin, “NanoDrop microvolume quantitation of nucleic acids”, Journal of visualized experiments: JoVE, Vol.45, p.2565,2010.
[9] H. Auer, S. Lyianarachchi, D. Newsom, MI. Klisovic and K. Kornacker, “Chipping away at the chip bias: RNA degradation in microarray analysis”, Nature genetics, Vol.35, No.4, p.292, 2003.
[10] M. Lebuhn, J. Derenko, A. Rademacher, S. Helbig, B. Munk, A. Pechtl, Y. Stolze, S. Prowe, W. Schwarz, A. Schluter and W. Liebl, “DNA and RNA extraction and quantitative real-time PCR-based assays for biogas biocenoses in an interlaboratory comparison”, Bioengineering, Vol.3, No.1, p.7, 2016.
[11] Y. Karlen, A. McNair, S. Perseguers, C. Mazza and N. Mermod, “Statistical significance of quantitative PCR”. BMC bioinformatics, Vol.8, No.1, p.131. 2007.
[12] E Labourier, “A better way to isolate RNA and protein from the same sample”, Ambion TechNotes 10(3), pp.16–17, 2003.
[13] SA.Bustin, T.Nolan, “Pitfalls of quantitative real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chainreaction”, Journal of Biomolecular Techniques, Vol.15, pp.155–166, 2004.
[14] ML. Wong and JF. Medrano “Real-time PCR for mRNA quantitation”. BioTechniques, Vol.39, pp.75–85, 2005.
[15] O. Schoor, T. Weinschenk, J. Hennenlotter, S. Corvin, A. Stenzl, HG. Rammensee, S. Stevanovic, “Moderate degradation does not preclude microarray analysis of small amounts of RNA”, BioTechniques, Vol.35, pp.1192–1201, 2003.
[16] Tichopad, A. Dzidic, MW. Pfaffl, “Improving quantitative real-time RT-PCR reproducibility by
boosting primer-linked amplification efficiency”, Biotechnology Letters 24, pp.2053–2056, 2002