Tag Archives: RNA

DNase Treatment – Jake’s O.lurida Ctenidia RNA (Controls) from 20150507

Since the O.lurida RNA I isolated on 20150507 showed residual gDNA via qPCR, I treated 5μg of RNA from each sample using the Turbo DNA-free Kit (Ambion/Life Technologies), following the “rigorous” protocol.

Briefly:

  • 50μL reactions were carried out in 0.5mL tubes
  • added 1μL of DNase to each tube
  • incubated 30mins @ 37C
  • added additional 1μL of DNased
  • incubated 30mins @ 37C
  • added 0.2 vols (10.2μL) of DNase Inactivation Reagent
  • incubated and mixed for 2mins @ RT
  • transferred 50μL of supe to sterile 1.5mL snap cap tubes
  • spec’d on Roberts Lab NanoDrop1000

Samples were stored @ -80C in Shellfish RNA Box #5 and Box #6.

DNase reaction calcs: 20150514_Jake_Oly_control_DNase_calcs

 

 

Results:

 

Google Spreadsheet: 20150514_DNased_RNA_Jake_Oly_controls_ODs

 

 

 

 

Overall, samples look fine. Will check for residual gDNA via qPCR.

Share

qPCR – Jake O.lurida ctenidia RNA (Heat Shock Samples) from 20150506

Ran qPCRs on the O.lurida total RNA I isolated on 20150506 to assess presence of gDNA carryover with Oly Actin primers (SR IDs: 1505, 1504).

Used 1μL from all templates.

All samples were run in duplicate.

Positive control was HL1 O.lurida DNA isolated by Jake on 20150323.

Master mix calcs are here: 20150512_qPCR_Oly_RNA

Cycling params:

  • 95C – 3mins
  • 40 cycles of:
    • 95C – 5s
    • 60C – 20s
  • Melt curve

 

Plate layout: 20150512_qPCR_plate_Jake_Oly_HS_RNA

Results:

qPCR Data File (Opticon2): Sam_20150512_123246.tad

qPCR Report (Google Spreadsheet):20150512_qPCR_Report_Jake_Oly_HS_RNA

Excluding the no template controls (NTC), all samples produced amplification. Will require DNasing before making cDNA.

Related to the qPCR I ran earlier today with these same primers, the efficiencies of the reactions on this plate are significantly better (i.e. normal; >80% efficiencies) than the earlier qPCR. The improved efficiency would also explain why the positive control comes up two cycles earlier on this run.

In the amplification plots below, the positive control reps are the two lines coming up at cycle ~20.

 

Amplification Plots

 

Melt Curves

Share

qPCR – Jake O.lurida ctenidia RNA (Control Samples) From 20150507

Ran qPCRs on the O.lurida total RNA I isolated on 20150507 to assess presence of gDNA carryover with Oly Actin primers (SR IDs: 1505, 1504).

Used 1μL from all templates.

All samples were run in duplicate.

Positive control was HL1 O.lurida DNA isolated by Jake on 20150323.

Master mix calcs are here: 20150512_qPCR_Oly_RNA

Cycling params:

  • 95C – 3mins

40 cycles of:

  • 95C – 5s
  • 60C – 20s

Melt curve

 

Plate layout: 20150512_qPCR_plate_Jake_Oly_Control_RNA

 

Results:

qPCR Data File (Opticon2): Sam_20150512_105811.tad

qPCR Report (Google Spreadsheet): 20150512_qPCR_Report_Jake_Oly_Control_RNA

Excluding the no template controls (NTC), all samples produced amplification. Will require DNasing before making cDNA.

On a side note, it should be noted that the efficiencies for all of the reactions were pretty bad; probably averaging 50%. Not entirely sure why or what that indicates.

In the amplification plots below, the positive control reps are the two red lines coming up at cycle ~22.

Amplification Plots

 

 

Melt Curves

 

 

Share

RNA Isolation – Geoduck Gonad in Paraffin Histology Blocks

UPDATE 20150528: The RNA isolated in this notebook entry may have been consolidated on 20150528.

The RNA isolation I performed earlier this week proved to be better for some of the samples (scraping tissue directly from the blocks), but still exhibited low yields from some samples. I will perform a final RNA isolation attempt (the kit only has six columns left) from the following samples:

  • 02
  • 03
  • 04
  • 07
  • 08
  • 09

Instead of full sections from each histology cassette, I gouged samples directly from the tissue in each of the blocks to maximize the amount of tissue input.

IMPORTANT:

Samples were then processed with the PAXgene Tissue RNA Kit in a single group.

Isolated RNA according to the PAXgene Tissue RNA Kit protocol with the following alterations:

  • “Max speed” spins were performed at 19,000g.
  • Tissue disruption was performed with the Disruptor Genie @ 45C for 15mins.
  • Shaking incubation step was performed with Disruptor Genie
  • Samples were eluted with 40μL of Buffer TR4, incubated @ 65C for 5mins, immediately placed on ice and quantified on the Roberts Lab NanoDrop1000.

 

All samples were stored @ -80C in Shellfish RNA Box #5.

Results:

 

Two samples (02 and 07) produced great yields and perfect RNA (260/280 and 260/230 of ~2.0). The remainder of the samples showed little improvement compared to what I’ve been obtaining from the previous three attempts. Will discuss with Steven and Brent about how to proceed with this project.

Share

RNA Isolation – Jake’s O. lurida Ctenidia Control from 20150422

Isolated RNA from Jake’s Olympia oyster ctenidia, controls, collected on 20150422. Samples had been homogenized and stored @ -80C.

The following sample tubes (heat-shocked oyster ctenidia) were removed from -80C and thawed at RT:

  •  42215 HC 1
  •  42215 HC 2
  • 42215 HC 3
  • 42215 HC 4
  • 42215 HC 5
  • 42215 HC 6
  • 42215 HC 7
  • 42215 HC 8
  • 42215 NC 1
  • 42215 NC 2
  • 42215 NC 3
  • 42215 NC 4
  • 42215 NC 5
  • 42215 NC 6
  • 42215 NC 7
  • 42215 NC 8
  • 42215 SC 1
  • 42215 SC 2
  • 42215 SC 3
  • 42215 SC 4
  • 42215 SC 5
  • 42215 SC 6
  • 42215 SC 7
  • 42215 SC 8

 

NOTE: 0.1% DEPC-H2O used throughout this procedure was prepared on 7/15/2010 by me.

 

According to Jake’s notebook entry, the samples should have been previously homogenized in RNAzol RT (Molecular Research Center; MRC). However, none of the samples showed evidence of being homogenized:

 

 

 

Procedure:

Samples were homogenized with disposable pestle in their respective tubes and vortexed.

Added 400μL of 0.1% DEPC-H2O to each sample and vortexed 15s.

Incubated samples 15mins at RT.

Centrifuged tubes 15mins at RT @ 16,000g.

750μL of the supe was transferred to a clean tube, added equal volume of isopropanol (750μL), mixed by inversion (20 times), and incubated at RT for 15mins.

Centrifuged 12,000g for 10mins.

Discarded supe.

Washed pellets with 500μL of 75% EtOH (made with 0.1% DEPC-H2O) and centrifuged 4,000g for 3mins at RT. Repeated one time.

Removed EtOH and resuspended in 100μL of 0.1% DEPC-H2O. Most samples required vortexing to dissolve pellet.

Sample tubes were transferred to ice, quantified on the Roberts Lab NanoDrop1000, and stored @ -80C in their original box, pictured:

 

 

 

 

Results:

Google Spreadsheet with absorbance data: 20150507_Jake_Oly_control_RNA_ODs

 

Excellent yields and pretty solid 260/280 ratios (>1.85). Interestingly, the 260/230 ratios aren’t so great (compared to yesterday’s isolations). I suspect that the reason for this is that there appeared to be more starting tissue in these samples than yesterday’s. The greater quantity of tissue explains the higher yields and could be tied to the decrease in the 260/230 ratios…

Anyway, things look good. Next step will be to check for gDNA carryover in these samples and yesterday’s samples.

Share

Bioanalyzer Data – Geoduck RNA from Histology Blocks

I received the Bioanalyzer data back for the geoduck foot RNA samples I submitted 20150422. The two samples were run on the RNA Pico chip assay.

 

Results:

Bioanalzyer 2100 Data File (XAD): SamWhite_Eukaryote Total RNA Pico_2015-04-23_13-04-16.xad

Data file requires 2100_Expert_B0208_SI648_SR2 version of the software (Windows).

Gel Representation

 

Electropherogram

 

The samples look really good! As we’ve seen previously in shellfish RNA, there is a single, prominent rRNA band/peak with very little degradation (smearing and/or no prominent peak/band).

Will proceed with RNA isolation from the remaining histology blocks.

Share

Bioanalyzer Submission – Geoduck Gonad RNA from Histology Blocks

Submitted 3μL (~75ng) of RNA from each of the two gonad samples isolated from foot tissue embedded in paraffin histology blocks 20150408 (to assess quality of RNA) to Jesse Tsai at University of Washington Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Science Functional Genomics Laboratory:

  • Geoduck Block 34
  • Geoduck Block 42

Jesse will determine if the samples should be run on the RNA Pico or the RNA Nano chips.

Share

RNA Isolation – Jessica’s Geoduck Larval Stages

Isolated RNA from the following samples provided by Jessica Blanchette (stored in RNA later):

  • Trocophore 1 (T1)
  • Trocophore 2 (T2)
  • Veliger 1 (V1)
  • Veliger 2 (V2)
  • Settlers Interphase 1 (S1)
  • Settlers Interphase 2 (S2)

The tocophore and veliger larval stages are neutrally bouyant (i.e. will not pellet when centrifuged). In order to separate them from the RNA Later, I used a fine mesh (don’t know mesh size; bag was labeled “Unknown”) as a “guard” between the pipette tip and the larvae. Removed RNA Later from those two groups in this fashion. However, a significant portion of the larvae in these tubes adhered to the outside of the mesh. I left the mesh “guard” in the tube, added 1mL of TriReagent and vortexed. The mesh quickly dissolved in the TriReagent, creating a milky white mix.

For the settlers samples, there was a such a large pellet already in the existing tubes, I just took ~75uL of this material, transferred to a clean tube and added 1mL of TriReagent. However, most of the debris that I transferred dissolved extremely quickly. I was expecting there to more insoluble “debris”, because marine bivalve larval shells generally don’t readily dissolve in the presence of TriReagent. So, I suspect that much of the settlers samples is not really geoduck larvae.

Due to time constraints, stored all samples O/N @-80C in TriReagent.

Samples were thawed and RNA was isolated, and DNased, using the Direct-zol RNA Miniprep Kit (ZymoResearch), eluted with 50uL of 0.1% DEPC-treated H2O, and spec’d on the NanoDrop1000.

Prior to isolation, sample V1 showed a clear phase separation that none of the other samples exhibited. Sample V1 had a pink, goopy layer on top of a clear, low-viscosity layer. All other samples retained the uniform pink coloration imparted by the TriReagent. Additionally, after addition of the EtOH in the procedure to sample V1, a large amount of white precipitate formed and settled to the bottom of the tube. This did not happen in any other samples.

Samples were stored @ -80C in “Shellfish RNA Box #5

Results:

Overall, the yields are relatively low, as expected. Virtually all of the samples have poor OD260/280 values. Although not shown, there was a consistent shift in peak absorbance from 260nm towards 270nm, leading to the poor OD260/280 values.

Share