International Journal of Molecular Sciences (Sep 2023)

Measuring Up: A Comparison of TapeStation 4200 and Bioanalyzer 2100 as Measurement Tools for RNA Quality in Postmortem Human Brain Samples

  • Jessica E. Walker,
  • Javon C. Oliver,
  • Analisa M. Stewart,
  • Suet Theng Beh,
  • Richard A. Arce,
  • Michael J. Glass,
  • Daisy E. Vargas,
  • Sanaria H. Qiji,
  • Anthony J. Intorcia,
  • Claryssa I. Borja,
  • Madison P. Cline,
  • Spencer J. Hemmingsen,
  • Addison N. Krupp,
  • Rylee D. McHattie,
  • Monica R. Mariner,
  • Ileana Lorenzini,
  • Sidra Aslam,
  • Cecilia Tremblay,
  • Thomas G. Beach,
  • Geidy E. Serrano

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms241813795
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 24, no. 18
p. 13795

Abstract

Read online

The determination of RNA integrity is a critical quality assessment tool for gene expression studies where the experiment’s success is highly dependent on the sample quality. Since its introduction in 1999, the gold standard in the scientific community has been the Agilent 2100 Bioanalyzer’s RNA integrity number (RIN), which uses a 1–10 value system, from 1 being the most degraded, to 10 being the most intact. In 2015, Agilent launched 4200 TapeStation’s RIN equivalent, and reported a strong correlation of r2 of 0.936 and a median error 2 of 0.393 and an average difference of 3.2 RIN units. DV200 also only weakly correlated with RIN (r2 of 0.182) and RINe (r2 of 0.347). Finally, when applying a cut-off value of 6.5 for both metrics, we found that 95.6% of samples passed with RIN, while only 23.5% passed with RINe. Our results suggest that even though RIN (Bioanalyzer) and RINe (TapeStation) use the same 1–10 value system, they should not be used interchangeably, and cut-off values should be calculated independently.

Keywords