Cited by 97Genomics and Phylogenetic StudiesMolecular Biology Techniques and ApplicationsGene expression and cancer classification

DV200 Index for assessing RNA integrity in next‐generation sequencing

Open access
Matsubara, Takehiro, Soh, Junichi, Morita, Mizuki, Uwabo, Takahiro, Tomida, Shuta, Fujiwara, Toshiyoshi, Kanazawa, Susumu, Toyooka, Shinichi +1 more·2020·BioMed Research International

Abstract

Poor quality of biological samples will result in an inaccurate analysis of next‐generation sequencing (NGS). Therefore, methods to accurately evaluate sample integrity are needed. Among methods for evaluating RNA quality, the RNA integrity number equivalent (RINe) is widely used, whereas the DV200, which evaluates the percentage of fragments of >200 nucleotides, is also used as a quality assessment standard. In this study, we compared the RINe and DV200 RNA quality indexes to determine the most suitable RNA index for the NGS analysis. Seventy‐one RNA samples were extracted from formalin‐fixed paraffin‐embedded tissue samples ( n = 30), fresh‐frozen samples ( n = 25), or cell lines ( n = 16). After assessing RNA quality using the RINe and DV200, we prepared two kinds of stranded mRNA sequencing libraries. Finally, we calculated the correlation between each RNA quality index and the amount of library product (1 st PCR product per input RNA). The DV200 measure showed stronger correlation with the amount of library product than the RINe ( R 2 = 0.8208 for the DV200 versus 0.6927 for the RINe). Receiver operating characteristic curve analyses revealed that the DV200 was the better marker for predicting efficient library production than the RINe using a threshold of >10 ng/ng for the amount of the 1 st PCR product per input RNA (cutoff value for the RINe and DV200, 2.3 and 66.1%; area under the curve, 0.99 and 0.91; sensitivity, 82% and 92%; and specificity, 93% and 100%, respectively). Our results indicate that NGS libraries prepared using RNA samples with the DV200 value > 66.1 % exhibit greater sensitivity and specificity than those prepared with the RINe values > 2.3. These findings suggest that the DV200 is superior to the RINe, especially for low‐quality RNA, because it is a more consistent assessment of the amount of the 1 st NGS library product per input.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1155/2020/9349132

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Matsubara, T., Soh, J., Morita, M., Uwabo, T., Tomida, S., Fujiwara, T., Kanazawa, S., Toyooka, S., & Hirasawa, A.
Affiliations
  • Okayama University Hospital (JP)
  • Okayama University (JP)
Corresponding author
Soh, Junichi
Venue
BioMed Research International
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-01
Volume
2020
Issue
1
Pages
9349132-9349132
ISSN
  • 1110-7243 (ISSN-L)
  • 2314-6133
  • 2314-6141
OpenAlex
W3007740300
Cited by
97
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 1
FWCI
2.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BioMed Research International (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Institutional Repositories DataBase (IRDB) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Okayama University Scientific Achievement Repository (Okayama University) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development
  • Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (15H04830, 16K19454, 16K10681)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology Techniques and Applications
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene expression and cancer classification
Keywords
RNA integrity, RNA quality assessment, formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue, fresh frozen tissue, cell lines
MeSH terms
Humans, RNA, Sensitivity and Specificity, Gene Library, Paraffin Embedding, High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing

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