Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorRiesgo, Ana
dc.contributor.authorRodriguez Perez-Porro, Alicia R.
dc.contributor.authorCarmona, Susana
dc.contributor.authorLeys, Sally P.
dc.contributor.authorGiribet, Gonzalo
dc.date.accessioned2016-07-27T17:13:59Z
dc.date.issued2011
dc.identifier.citationRiesgo, Ana, Alicia R. Pérez-Porro, Susana Carmona, Sally P. Leys, and Gonzalo Giribet. 2011. Optimization of Preservation and Storage Time of Sponge Tissues to Obtain Quality mRNA for Next-Generation Sequencing. Molecular Ecology Resources 12, no. 2: 312–322.en_US
dc.identifier.issn1755-098Xen_US
dc.identifier.issn1755-0998en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:27755242
dc.description.abstractTranscriptome sequencing with next-generation sequencing technologies has the potential for addressing many long-standing questions about the biology of sponges. Transcriptome sequence quality depends on good cDNA libraries, which requires high-quality mRNA. Standard protocols for preserving and isolating mRNA often require optimization for unusual tissue types. Our aim was assessing the efficiency of two preservation modes, (i) flash freezing with liquid nitrogen (LN2) and (ii) immersion in RNAlater, for the recovery of high-quality mRNA from sponge tissues. We also tested whether the long-term storage of samples at −80 °C affects the quantity and quality of mRNA. We extracted mRNA from nine sponge species and analysed the quantity and quality (A260/230 and A260/280 ratios) of mRNA according to preservation method, storage time, and taxonomy. The quantity and quality of mRNA depended significantly on the preservation method used (LN2 outperforming RNAlater), the sponge species, and the interaction between them. When the preservation was analysed in combination with either storage time or species, the quantity and A260/230 ratio were both significantly higher for LN2-preserved samples. Interestingly, individual comparisons for each preservation method over time indicated that both methods performed equally efficiently during the first month, but RNAlater lost efficiency in storage times longer than 2 months compared with flash-frozen samples. In summary, we find that for long-term preservation of samples, flash freezing is the preferred method. If LN2 is not available, RNAlater can be used, but mRNA extraction during the first month of storage is advised.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipOrganismic and Evolutionary Biologyen_US
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherWiley-Blackwellen_US
dc.relation.isversionofdoi:10.1111/j.1755-0998.2011.03097.xen_US
dash.licenseMETA_ONLY
dc.subjectflash freezingen_US
dc.subjectilluminaen_US
dc.subjectmessenger RNAen_US
dc.subjectnucleic acidsen_US
dc.subjectRNA isolationen_US
dc.subjectRNAlateren_US
dc.titleOptimization of Preservation and Storage Time of Sponge Tissues to Obtain Quality mRNA for Next-Generation Sequencingen_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.description.versionVersion of Recorden_US
dc.relation.journalMolecular Ecology Resourcesen_US
dash.depositing.authorGiribet, Gonzalo
dash.embargo.until10000-01-01
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1755-0998.2011.03097.x*
dash.authorsorderedfalse
dash.contributor.affiliatedRodriguez Perez-Porro, Alicia R.
dash.contributor.affiliatedRiesgo, Ana
dash.contributor.affiliatedGiribet, Gonzalo


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record