The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Extensive postmortem stability of RNA from rat and human brain
Abstract
The postmortem stability of brain RNA was measured in rat and human samples for up to 48hr. Whole rat brains, cooled at a rate approximating that of human brains awaiting autopsy, were collected at intervals from 0 to 48 hr after death and frozen. These samples were compared with freshly obtained, unfrozen rat brains. Two potentially independent characteristics of these RNA populations were measured: (1) the recovery or yield of RNA/gram tissue (quantity) and (2) the integrity or extent of degradation (quality). Total RNA yields were similar after all postmortem delays. Hybridization of [32 P]‐labeled cDNA probes to nitrocellulose filter blots of electrophoretically separated rat brain RNA failed to reveal degradation of the specific rat brain mRNAs during the postmortem period. Similarly, in vitro translation of these same rat total RNA samples produced high molecular weight translation products with no differences between long and short postmortem times. Human cerebral cortex RNA was prepared by the same methods as those used for rat brain from a neurosurgical sample and four other donors with postmortem intervals from 7 to 36 hr. Typically, the yield of total RNA from human brain was 40–50% of the yield from rat brain. When analyzed by RNA gel blot hybridization studies, as for rat brain RNA, human cortical RNA appeared slightly degraded. However, the degree of apparent RNA degradation was not related to the postmortem interval. In vitro translation products of human cortical RNA revealed high molecular weight peptides at all postmortem intervals, but slightly less [35 S]incorporation into these bands was found at the longer postmortem intervals relative to the shorter times. Together, these results demonstrate an extensive stability of brain RNA that invites aggressive use of molecular genetic techniques for the study of human neurodegenerative diseases.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Arizona Study of Aging and Neurodegenerative Disorders and Brain and Body Donation Program
Beach, T. G., Adler, C. H., Sue, L. I., Serrano, G., Shill, H. A., Walker, D. G., Lue, L., Roher, A. E., Dugger, B. N., Maarouf, C., et al. (2015) · Neuropathology · doi:10.1111/neup.12189 · Cited by 460
GFAP mRNA increases with age in rat and human brain
Nichols, N. R., Day, J. R., Laping, N. J., Johnson, S. A., & Finch, C. E. (1993) · Neurobiology of Aging · doi:10.1016/0197-4580(93)90100-p · Cited by 413
Self-citationHuman postmortem tissue: What quality markers matter?
Stan, A. D., Ghose, S., Gao, X.-M., Roberts, R. C., Lewis-Amezcua, K., Hatanpaa, K. J., & Tamminga, C. A. (2006) · Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2006.09.025 · Cited by 361
Harrison, P. J., Heath, P. R., Eastwood, S. L., Burnet, P. W. J., McDonald, B., & Pearson, R. C. A. (1995) · Neuroscience Letters · doi:10.1016/0304-3940(95)12102-a · Cited by 342
Tomita, H., Vawter, M. P., Walsh, D. M., Evans, S. J., Choudary, P. V., Li, J., Overman, K. M., Atz, M. E., Myers, R. M., Jones, E. G., et al. (2004) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2003.10.013 · Cited by 331
Metadata
- Authors
- Johnson, S. A., Morgan, D. G., & Finch, C. E.
- Venue
- Journal of Neuroscience Research
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1986-01
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 267-280
- ISSN
- 0360-4012 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-4547
- OpenAlex
- W2002414447
- Cited by
- 224
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 1.66
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Extensive postmortem stability of RNA from rat and human brain. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/jnr.490160123
- The paper
- Johnson, S. A., Morgan, D. G., & Finch, C. E. (1986). Extensive postmortem stability of RNA from rat and human brain. Journal of Neuroscience Research. https://doi.org/10.1002/jnr.490160123
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.