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.

Cerebral white matter rarefaction has both neurodegenerative and vascular causes and may primarily be a distal axonopathy.

Cerebral white matter rarefaction (CWMR) was considered by Binswanger and Alzheimer to be due to cerebral arteriolosclerosis. Renewed attention came with CT and MR brain imaging, and neuropathological studies finding a high rate of CWMR in Alzheimer disease (AD). The relative contributions of cerebrovascular disease and AD to CWMR are still uncertain. In 1181 autopsies by the Arizona Study of Aging and Neurodegenerative Disorders (AZSAND), large-format brain sections were used to grade CWMR and determine its vascular and neurodegenerative correlates. Almost all neurodegenerative diseases had more severe CWMR than the normal control group. Multivariable logistic regression models indicated that Braak neurofibrillary stage was the strongest predictor of CWMR, with additional independently significant predictors including age, cortical and diencephalic lacunar and microinfarcts, body mass index, and female sex. It appears that while AD and cerebrovascular pathology may be additive in causing CWMR, both may be solely capable of this. The typical periventricular pattern suggests that CWMR is primarily a distal axonopathy caused by dysfunction of the cell bodies of long-association corticocortical projection neurons. A consequence of these findings is that CWMR should not be viewed simply as "small vessel disease" or as a pathognomonic indicator of vascular cognitive impairment or vascular dementia.