Optimizing Total RNA Extraction Method for Animal Tissues


Abstract

Background. the extraction of high-quality total RNA is pivotal for advanced RNA molecular studies, such as Next-generation sequencing and Microarray DNA hybridization. Despite the development of numerous extraction methods in recent decades, like the CTAB and the Traditional Trizol reagent methods, their complexity and high costs often impede their application in small-scale laboratories. Therefore, a practical and economical method for RNA extraction that maintains high standards of efficiency and quality need to be provided.Method. this study proposes enhancements to the Traditional Trizol method through the incorporation of guanidine isothiocyanate (GITC-T method) and/or sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS-T method). The objective is to optimize RNA extraction from animal tissues. We evaluated the effectiveness of these modified methods in comparison to the Traditional Trizol method using electrophoresis, Q-PCR, and RNA-Seq.Result. electrophoresis and RNA-Seq demonstrated that the GITC-T method yielded RNA with higher integrity and purity while the consistency in RNA quality between the two methods was confirmed . Furthermore, Q-PCR indicated that the GITC-T method achieved higher yields and greater transcript abundance of total RNA from the same types of animal samples than the Trizol methodConclusion. the GITC-T method not only yields higher purity and quantity of RNA but also reduces reagent consumption and overall costs, thereby presenting a more feasible option for small-scale laboratory settings.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at peer.review@peerj.com.