Decruyenaere P, Verniers K, Poma-Soto F, Van Dorpe J, Offner F, Vandesompele J. RNA Extraction Method Impacts Quality Metrics and Sequencing Results in Formalin-Fixed, Paraffin-Embedded Tissue Samples. Lab Invest. 2023;103(2):100027.

    PMID: 37039153  DOI: 10.1016/j.labinv.2022.100027

    Abstract

    Archived formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue samples are being increasingly used in molecular cancer research. Compared with fresh-frozen tissue, the nucleic acid analysis of FFPE tissue is technically more challenging. This study aimed to compare the impact of 3 different RNA extraction methods on yield, quality, and sequencing-based gene expression results in FFPE samples. RNA extraction was performed in 16 FFPE tumor specimens from patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and in reference FFPE material from microsatellite-stable and microsatellite-instable cell lines (3 replicates each) using 2 silica-based procedures (A, miRNeasy FFPE; C, iCatcher FFPE Tissue RNA) and 1 isotachophoresis-based procedure (B, Ionic FFPE to Pure RNA). The RNA yield; RNA integrity, as reflected by the distribution value 200; and RNA purity, as reflected by the 260/280 and the 260/230 nm absorbance ratios, were determined. The RNA was sequenced on the NovaSeq 6000 instrument using the TruSeq RNA Exome and SMARTer Stranded Total RNA-Seq Pico v3 library preparations kits. Our results highlight the impact of RNA extraction methodology on both preanalytical and sequencing-based gene expression results. Overall, methods B and C outperformed method A because these showed significantly higher fractions of uniquely mapped reads, an increased number of detectable genes, a lower fraction of duplicated reads, and better representation of the B-cell receptor repertoire. Differences among the extraction methods were generally more explicit for the total RNA sequencing method than for the exome-capture sequencing method. Importantly, the predicative value of quality metrics varies among extraction kits, and caution should be applied when comparing and interpreting results obtained using different methods.