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

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 < ±0.4 RIN units. To evaluate this claim, we compared the Agilent 4200 TapeStation's RIN equivalent (RINe) and DV200 to the Agilent 2100 Bioanalyzer's RIN for 183 parallel RNA samples. In our study, using RNA from a total of 183 human postmortem brain samples, we found that the RIN and RINe values only weakly correlate, with an r2 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.

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

Determining RNA integrity is a critical quality assessment tool for gene expression studies where the experiment's success is highly dependent on 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 with 1 being the most degraded to 10 being the most intact. In 2015, Agilent launched the 4200 Tapestation's RIN equivalent and reported a strong correlation of r 2 of 0.936 and median error < ± 0.4 RIN units. To evaluate this claim, we compared the Agilent 4200 Tapestation's RIN equivalent (RINe) and DV200 to the Agilent 2100 Bioanalyzer's RIN for 183 parallel RNA samples. In our study, using RNA from a total of 183 human postmortem brain samples, we found that the RIN and RINe values only weakly correlate with an r 2 of 0.393 and an average difference of 3.2 RIN units. DV200 also only weakly correlated with RIN (r 2 of 0.182) and RINe (r 2 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.

Severe hyposmia distinguishes neuropathologically confirmed dementia with Lewy bodies from Alzheimer's disease dementia.

Many subjects with neuropathologically-confirmed dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) are never diagnosed during life, instead being categorized as Alzheimer's disease dementia (ADD) or unspecified dementia. Unrecognized DLB therefore is a critical impediment to clinical studies and treatment trials of both ADD and DLB. There are studies that suggest that olfactory function tests may be able to distinguish DLB from ADD, but few of these had neuropathological confirmation of diagnosis. We compared University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT) results in 257 subjects that went on to autopsy and neuropathological examination. Consensus clinicopathological diagnostic criteria were used to define ADD and DLB, as well as Parkinson's disease with dementia (PDD), with (PDD+AD) or without (PDD-AD) concurrent AD; a group with ADD and Lewy body disease (LBD) not meeting criteria for DLB (ADLB) and a clinically normal control group were also included. The subjects with DLB, PDD+AD and PDD-AD all had lower (one-way ANOVA p < 0.0001, pairwise Bonferroni p < 0.05) first and mean UPSIT scores than the ADD, ADLB or control groups. For DLB subjects with first and mean UPSIT scores less than 20 and 17, respectively, Firth logistic regression analysis, adjusted for age, gender and mean MMSE score, conferred statistically significant odds ratios of 17.5 and 18.0 for the diagnosis, vs ADD. For other group comparisons (PDD+AD and PDD-AD vs ADD) and UPSIT cutoffs of 17, the same analyses resulted in odds ratios ranging from 16.3 to 31.6 (p < 0.0001). To our knowledge, this is the largest study to date comparing olfactory function in subjects with neuropathologically-confirmed LBD and ADD. Olfactory function testing may be a convenient and inexpensive strategy for enriching dementia studies or clinical trials with DLB subjects, or conversely, reducing the inclusion of DLB subjects in ADD studies or trials.