Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2026 Mar 20;21(3):e0321432. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0321432

The effect of cold ischemia time on hypoxia, EMT, and apoptosis pathways in normal colon mucosa

Katarzyna Duzowska 1, Mikołaj Opiełka 1,2, Kinga Drężek-Chyła 1, Anna Kostecka 1, Monika Horbacz 1, Jarosław Skokowski 3, Olga Rostkowska 4, Jarosław Kobiela 4, Leszek Kalinowski 5,6, Jan P Dumanski 1,7, Arkadiusz Piotrowski 1, Marcin Jąkalski 1,8,*,#, Natalia Filipowicz 1,*,#
Editor: Aniruddha Datta9
PMCID: PMC13004397  PMID: 41860925

Abstract

Cold ischemia time (CIT), the interval between tissue excision and preservation, is a critical preanalytical variable that profoundly impacts gene expression profiles. Variability in CIT can lead to inconsistent transcriptomic results, making study interpretation challenging and undermining reproducibility in biomedical research. Our study aimed to evaluate the impact of CIT on the expression of cancer-related genes, particularly these involved in hypoxia, apoptosis, and epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT). We performed RNA sequencing on 54 normal colon mucosa samples from nine patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgeries, freezing samples at predefined intervals ranging from 0 to 60 minutes. A total of 44 differentially expressed genes (DEGs) (p < 0.05) were identified when comparing samples frozen immediately (T0) with those frozen after 60 minutes (T5). These DEGs were further analyzed through functional and pathway enrichment analyses and weighted gene co-expression network analysis (WGCNA). The enrichment analysis revealed significant alterations in pathways associated with apoptosis, hypoxia, EMT, and cancer progression, including p53 and HIF-1 signaling. WGCNA highlighted two co-expressed gene modules: ME2, which showed downregulation of apoptosis-related genes, and ME4, linked to apoptosis and cellular metabolism. Our findings highlight CIT as a critical preanalytical variable, showing that prolonged ischemia can induce transcriptomic changes that may mimic malignancy, and potentially confound research outcomes. To minimize such effects, we recommend keeping CIT under 30 minutes.

Introduction

The quality and integrity of biological samples are crucial for multi-omic studies, directly impacting the reliability of results. Preanalytical variables, including patient-specific factors and tissue handling protocols, can significantly impact the outcomes [1,2]. With biobanking playing a crucial role in biomedical translational research, standardized tissue collection protocols are essential to minimize external variability [3–5]. Ischemia, defined as a restriction of blood supply to tissues or organs, results in a shortage of oxygen supply necessary to sustain the cellular metabolism. In the ex vivo context, this process can be classified into warm and cold ischemia. Cold ischemia time (CIT) refers to the condition in which oxygen supply is entirely absent after tissue excision while the sample is maintained at temperatures below body temperature [6]. Warm ischemia time (WIT) refers to the period during which the tissue remains in the donor’s body but the oxygen supply is insufficient to meet metabolic demands. This preanalytical variable is challenging to control as it relies on the efficiency of the surgical team, for which the priority is the successful completion of the operation. Reports on the impact of WIT on transcriptomic profiles are scarce, but studies, including those by Pedersen et al. and Ma et al., highlight its effects, identifying numerous differentially expressed genes (DEGs) and alterations in oncogenic, inflammatory, and immunological pathways [7,8]. In contrast, CIT is determined by the biobanking procedure and can be effectively managed by the tissue collector [9]. Prolonged CIT, rather than malignancy, can lead to specific, even subtle, changes in gene expression profiles, complicating the interpretation of tissue samples.

Several studies have assessed the impact of CIT on RNA quality, measured as RNA integrity number (RIN), reporting minimal changes up to 4 hours [10–12] and even up to 16 hours at room temperature [13]. RNA quality also varies by tissue type, with thyroid and colorectal tissues being more sensitive to cold ischemia compared to stomach and lung tissues [14]. Gastrointestinal samples, in general, tend to exhibit lower RNA quality than those from other organs [2,15], with tumor tissues displaying significantly higher RINs than normal tissues, though CIT has little effect on this observed difference [2].

While most reports focus on RNA integrity, few have explored the impact of CIT on gene expression, particularly in cancer-related pathways [11,16,17]. Transcriptomic analyses suggest that CIT exceeding 60 minutes can significantly alter gene expression. Aktas et al. identified 41 transcripts affected by prolonged CIT, including apoptosis- and cell cycle-related genes, with over 3% showing significant changes [10]. Other study reported transcriptomic alterations as early as 30 minutes post-excision, for instance delayed freezing of colorectal carcinoma samples lead to increased KLF6 expression, potentially misrepresenting its role in tumor pathogenesis [16]. A study of transcriptomic profiles in renal carcinoma showed over 4,000 genes were affected at longer CIT durations and higher temperatures, emphasizing the need for immediate snap-freezing to preserve gene expression profiles relevant to cancer research [11].

Despite these findings, the existing literature remains limited, particularly regarding the effect of cold ischemia time (CIT) on the transcription of cancer-associated genes, including those involved in epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT), hypoxia, apoptosis, and cell death. These genes are crucial for understanding cancer biology and the complex interactions within the tumor microenvironment [18]. Moreover, their expression can directly influence treatment decisions and patient outcomes [16,18–20]. Some of these genes may be first responders to cold ischemia, making them potential markers of CIT. Examining these preanalytical factors is essential not only to enhance the reliability and reproducibility of experimental findings but also to ensure that scientific conclusions translate effectively into clinical practice.

The primary aim of this research is to investigate the influence of CIT on the transcription profile of macro- and microscopically normal colon mucosa collected from patients with colorectal cancer. The focus on normal colon mucosa aligns with the design of ongoing research in our laboratory, which investigates genetic mosaicism focusing on post-zygotic mutations accumulating in morphologically normal tissues proximal and distal to tumors [4,21]. Furthermore, the majority of the publicly available studies focused on tumor tissue, with limited insights into healthy tissue [2,13,17]. Here we employed targeted RNA sequencing (NGS RNAseq), including, among the others, genes associated with hypoxia, apoptosis, and cancer, thus addressing a critical gap in the literature on preanalytical variables for tissue collection and subsequent analysis for cancer research.

Materials and methods

Study design and Sample Handling

The healthy colon mucosa samples were collected from 9 consecutive patients (2 females; 7 males; mean age 68 years ± 10.9) diagnosed with colorectal cancer who underwent surgical resection from 21st of April to 24th of August 2021 in the Department of Oncological, Transplant, and General Surgery; University Clinical Center in Gdansk. The summary of patients’ data is presented in Table 1. All the procedures were performed using an open surgical approach, which minimizes WIT by allowing immediate specimen extraction following devascularization. In contrast, laparoscopic and robotic approaches require placement of the devascularized specimen into an extraction bag, with removal occurring only at the completion of the procedure. All operations consisted of left-sided colectomies or rectal resections, with operative times ranging from 1 hour 15 minutes to 3 hours 20 minutes. Considering the open approach and the review specific technical aspects of the procedures, WIT did not exceed 40 minutes in any case. This variable should be considered unmodifiable, as it is largely determined by intra-abdominal anatomical conditions. After the surgical resection, a larger, full-walled specimen of the colon was immediately excised approximately 10–15 cm away from the primary tumor, rinsed in saline and left at room temperature until the mucosa collection procedure at a particular time point was completed. At each time point, a sample of macroscopically unaffected mucosa was excised by dissecting from the colon specimen and detaching gently from the muscular layer. Subsequent washing steps were implemented, including: saline solution (twice), antibiotic solution (Penicillin – Streptomycin 5000 U/ml), and saline solution, followed by snap freezing in liquid nitrogen. Tissue fragments were collected at six time points – 0 (T0), 10 (T1), 20 (T2), 30 (T3), 45 (T4), and 60 (T5) minutes after the surgical resection, estimated as the time of cold ischemia. Sample collected at T0 was processed immediately after organ resection. First time point (T0) was used as the reference and the starting point for all the subsequent analyses. In total 54 samples were collected and subjected to further analysis.

Table 1. A summary of donors and diagnoses included in the study.

Patient ID Sex Age ICD-10 Classification
ES31C Male 67 C18.7 - Malignant neoplasm of sigmoid colon
5IDSR Female 70 C19 - Malignant neoplasm of rectosigmoid junction
OV1IW Male 67 C20 - Malignant neoplasm of rectum
NYYCH Male 48 C20 - Malignant neoplasm of rectum
LZZOP Female 72 C19 - Malignant neoplasm of rectosigmoid junction
JSDHP Male 68 C19 - Malignant neoplasm of rectosigmoid junction
PZ94B Male 83 C18.7 - Malignant neoplasm of sigmoid colon
FFMB1 Male 59 C20 - Malignant neoplasm of rectum
ABCD Male 83 C18.5 - Malignant neoplasm of splenic flexure

RNA extraction and quality control

Colon mucosa samples were stored at −80°C until RNA isolation. Total RNA was extracted from 10–30 mg of tissue samples that were mechanically homogenized using T10 Basic ULTRA – TURRAX disperser (IKA) in the presence of QIAzol Lysis reagent (Qiagen). RNA isolation, purification, and DNase digestion were performed using the RNeasy Mini kit (Qiagen) according to the original protocol with two modifications as described in the previous paper [22] RNA quality and quantity were assessed using TapeStation (Agilent Technologies) using RNA ScreenTape kit according to the manufacturer’s protocol (S1 Table in S1 File). RNA integrity number (RIN) was calculated using TapeStation analysis software (Agilent Technologies). Additionally, the DV200 index, indicating the percentage of RNA fragments > 200 nt, was calculated and used as a quality assessment standard [23]. Samples with a DV200 index > 75% were used for further NGS analysis.

Targeted RNA sequencing

The targeted RNA sequencing panel was designed with the Roche NimbleDesign online tool (Roche, now HyperDesign, https://hyperdesign.com/#/) and covered 7229 regions with a total length of 1,243,523 bp. It included 634 genes based on literature research and covered genes associated with apoptosis, cell death, hypoxia, epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition, and other cancer-related genes (the full list of transcripts is given in S2 Table in S1 File). NGS libraries were prepared with the Kapa RNA HyperPrep Kit (Roche) using Automated Liquid Handling Bravo NGS workstation (Agilent Technologies) according to the manufacturer manual with 100 ng RNA used as an input and enzymatic fragmentation at 94°C for 6 minutes, with the addition of ERCC RNA Spike-In Mix (Invitrogen) as an external RNA control. All the single libraries were multiplexed and hybridized with SeqCap EZ Choice Probes (Roche) designed by our group and KAPA HyperCapture Reagent and Bead kit (v2, Roche Sequencing Solutions, Inc.) according to SeqCap RNA Enrichment System User’s Guide (v.1.0) with slight modifications. Component A was replaced with formaldehyde, and the Multiplex Hybridization Enhancing Oligo Pool was replaced with Universal Blocking Oligos (UBO). The hybridization was run for 18h, the library was cleaned up, post-captured amplified, and purified, followed by inspection of fragment distribution using TapeStation with High Sensitivity D1000 Screen Tape kit (Agilent Technologies) and qPCR quantitation in a Roche LightCycler 480 with KAPA Library Quantification Kit (Roche). Paired-end reads of 150 bp were generated using TruSeq RNA Access sequencing chemistry by an external service provider (Macrogen Europe, Amsterdam, The Netherlands).

Transcriptomic data analysis

The RNA-seq data were processed as described in Andreou et al. 2024 [21]. Briefly, after the quality filtering and trimming of the raw FASTQ files with BBDuk (https://sourceforge.net/projects/bbmap/, version 38.36), the resulting reads were mapped to the reference human genome (hg38, GENCODE version 39) using STAR version 2.7.3a [24]. Raw read counts assigned to the annotated genes obtained in the above process were collated into a single gene expression matrix and processed further in R programming language (https://www.r-project.org, version 4.1.2). Lowly expressed genes were filtered out based on a minimal required CPM expression threshold. The filtered gene expression matrix was normalized using the TMM method in edgeR [25]. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was performed to investigate sample grouping and identify potential outliers using FactoMineR, version 2.4 [26]. We accounted for the paired nature of the RNAseq data by treating the patient ID as batch and removing its effect from the data using ComBat-seq [27]. Significantly differentially expressed genes (DEGs) were identified with EdgeR using the glmLRT function (likelihood ratio test) with a significance threshold set to 0.05 (False Discovery Rate, FDR).

Weighted gene co-expression network analysis (WGCNA) was performed on the normalized and batch-adjusted gene expression values using the WGCNA R library WGCNA [28]. Soft threshold value for building the correlation network was selected empirically based on diagnostic plots (pickSoftThreshold function). The final network was built using the blockwiseModules function, where the TOMType parameter was set to “signed”. Subsequently, a linear model (lmFit, from the limma package [29]) was run on all modules to identify those associated with the tested trait (time point).

Overrepresented terms/ GO/ pathways

Overrepresentation analysis (ORA) was used to perform functional enrichment analysis of significantly differentially expressed genes, utilizing the Gene Ontology (GO) database and the genome reference set in WebGestalt [30]. Pathway enrichment analysis was similarly conducted with ORA, focusing on KEGG pathways and the genome reference set in WebGestalt. In addition, functional and pathway enrichment analyses were separately applied to genes from WGCNA modules ME2 and ME4, using WebGestalt for the analysis.

Bioethics committee approval

All procedures for sample collection were approved by the Independent Bioethics Committee for Research at the Medical University of Gdansk (approval number NKBBN/564/2018 with multiple amendments). Written informed consent was obtained from all the patients prior to surgery. All procedures were performed in accordance with the relevant national and international laws and guidelines as well as in compliance with European Union General Data Protection Regulation (EU GDPR).

Results

Quality of total RNA within the studied time frame

Tissues from nine patients were collected and snap-frozen at six time points: immediately post-resection (T0), 10 minutes (T1), 20 minutes (T2), 30 minutes (T3), 45 minutes (T4), and 60 minutes (T5) post-resection (see Materials and Methods). As many prior studies have focused on RNA quality as a consequence of CIT, we performed quality control by measuring both RIN and DV200 values. Notably, RIN values remained consistent across all analyzed time points, with a median value of 4.3. Furthermore, all samples had DV200 above 75%, indicating that RNA was of sufficient quality for subsequent analysis [23]. The consistency of these results across all time points suggest that RNA integrity was preserved throughout the collection and processing protocol. Detailed RIN measurements for each sample are provided in S1 Table in S1 File.

Differential expression analysis highlights genes associated with hypoxia, EMT, and apoptosis

Differential expression analysis revealed 44 significantly differentially expressed genes (DEGs) between the two extreme time points set for our study, T0 and T5 (60 min) (S3 Table in S1 File). Principal component analysis (PCA) demonstrated a noticeable separation between samples at T0 and T5 after eliminating patient batch effect, as illustrated in Fig 1. Comparisons involving T0 and other time points (T1–T4) showed fewer statistically significant DEGs: zero between T0 vs T3, and six for T0 vs T4, namely ABCB1, ABCG2, EPAS1, FZD2, LAMA3, and TMPRSS2. Our results show that the initial gene expression changes occur between 30 minutes (T3) and 45 minutes (T4) post-excision; with 44 genes displaying significant changes between 45 minutes and 60 minutes (T5) after excision (S3 Table in S1 File). Thus, our further analyses focused on the T0 versus T5 comparison.

Fig 1. Principal component analysis (PCA) of all 54 samples using the normalized batch-corrected expression profiles of 1419 genes (both targeted and non-targeted).

Fig 1

Each point represents the orientation of a sample projected into the transcriptional space, color and symbol refer to its group membership. The analysis demonstrated clearly separated clusters of T0 and T5 samples (marked in green and yellow circles), a pattern not pronounced among the intermediate time points (T1-T4). T0 - time point 0, frozen immediately after resection; T1 - time point 1, frozen 10 minutes after resection; T2 - time point 2, frozen 20 minutes after resection; T3 - time point 3, frozen 30 minutes after resection; T4 - time point 4, frozen 45 minutes after resection; T5 - time point 5, frozen 60 minutes after resection.

Applying an absolute logFC cutoff of ≥1, we identified 15 upregulated genes and 29 downregulated genes in T5 compared to T0. Notably, DEGs included hypoxia- and EMT-associated genes such as SNAI, CDH1, ADM, MMP9, EGLN3, IL-6, AKT3, TSPAN1, and DSC2, as well as apoptosis-related genes: CASP7, TNFSF10, DEFB1, AKT3, and JPH3. Among the 44 DEGs identified between T0 and T5 (S3 Table), 5 were linked to hypoxia, 8 to apoptosis or cell death, and 10 to epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT) determined using EMTome [31]. The remaining 19 were classified as ‘other’. It is important to stress that none of 22 housekeeping genes used as a reference set included in the panel showed significant expression changes. S3 Table in S1 File provides the complete DEG list with the logFC, p-values, and FDR values.

Functional enrichment of DEGs using overrepresentation analysis (ORA) identified enrichment of Gene Ontology (GO) terms associated with processes such as apoptosis, cell-cell adhesion, tissue migration, and others. TNF signaling, ABC transporters, gastric cancer, and cancer pathways were among the enriched pathways shown by ORA KEGG analysis (S4 Table in S1 File.).

Weighted Gene Co-Expression Network Analysis (WGCNA) confirms two gene modules associated with apoptosis, EMT and hypoxia

To find the clusters of highly correlated genes in our dataset, we applied the WGCNA analysis that identified two significant gene modules, ME2 and ME4 (adjusted p-values 0.037 and 0.018, respectively), which demonstrate distinct patterns during the time course of our study. Notably, the genes within these modules were associated with key biological processes, including apoptosis, EMT, and hypoxia-related pathways (Fig 2).

Fig 2. Weighted Gene Co-Expression Network Analysis (WGCNA) of the expression profiles of all 54 samples using the normalized batch-corrected expression profiles of 1419 genes.

Fig 2

A. Two WGCNA modules significantly associated with the time course phenotype (ME2 and ME4, adjusted p-value 0.037 and 0.018, respectively) The y-axis on the boxplots represents module eigengene expression levels. B. Heatmaps of gene expression of ME2 and ME4 module genes; module eigengene provide summarized representation of the expression pattern of all genes in each module and sample type. C. Pie charts displaying the percentage of transcripts associated with particular biological processes or functions: apoptosis/cell death, hypoxia, epithelial-mesenchymal transition, reference genes, and ‘other’ in each module, ME2 and ME4, respectively. T0 - time point 0, frozen immediately after resection; T1 - time point 1, frozen 10 minutes after resection; T2 - time point 2, frozen 20 minutes after resection; T3 - time point 3, frozen 30 minutes after resection; T4 - time point 4, frozen 45 minutes after resection; T5 - time point 5, frozen 60 minutes after resection.

ME2 consisted of 145 genes, primarily exhibiting a downregulation pattern in T5 in relation to T0 (Fig 2A, 2B). Among these, 26.2% were related to apoptosis or cell death, 18.6% to EMT, 11.7% to hypoxia, and 0.69% (one gene) was annotated as a reference gene in our targeted panel (Fig 2C). The remaining 42.8% were categorized as ‘other’ (see details in S5 Table in S1 File). Functional enrichment analysis of ME2 genes using ORA GO (FDR < 0.05) identified several pathways, including those related to the execution phase of apoptosis and the extrinsic apoptotic signaling pathway. KEGG pathway analysis further highlighted nine pathways, including cancer-related and apoptosis-related processes such as p53 signaling, HIF-1 signaling, and FoxO signaling (S7 Table in S1 File).

ME4, a smaller gene module consisting of 56 genes, also displayed a downregulation pattern (Fig 2A, 2B). Genes comprised in this module showed a faster response to CIT, reaching a stable point at the T4 time point (Fig 2A). In ME2, however, the difference between T4 and T5 is visibly larger (Fig 2A). Within the ME4 cluster, 25% of genes were identified as apoptosis-related, while 16.1% were associated with EMT and hypoxia, respectively. Furthermore, 8.93% were classified as reference genes and 33.9% as ‘other’ (Fig 2A, 2B). ORA GO analysis (FDR < 0.05) in ME4 identified pathways connected to numerous metabolic processes, cell-cell signaling and homeostasis. Similarly, KEGG pathway analysis revealed significant metabolic and cancer-related processes, including glycolysis/gluconeogenesis, HIF-1 signaling pathway, and pathways related to gastric cancer (S7 Table in S1 File.).

Discussion

We examined the impact of up to 60 minutes of CIT on the transcription of cancer-related genes, with samples snap-frozen at defined time points. RNA integrity (RIN) varied across samples without a clear correlation to CIT (S1 Table in S1 File), consistent with studies showing minimal RNA degradation after 3–4 hours [12,13,32,33]. Despite applying four rinsing steps, colon mucosa samples showed relatively low RNA quality (mean RIN = 4.4, range 2.7–7.7), aligning with findings from other tissue comparisons [14,15]. This may stem from enzymatic activity, bacterial influence, or tissue compartment differences [34]. To mitigate this, RNA fragmentation conditions were optimized during the process of NGS library preparation.

Although utilizing a comprehensive transcriptomic approach covering over 600 genes, we detected no DEGs within the first 30 minutes post-resection, indicating this timeframe is likely safe for tissue excision and snap-freezing. Only six DEGs were identified between the 0 and 45 minute time points (T4), while 44 DEGs emerged between the 0 and 60 minute time points (T5), highlighting this period as critical for tissue freezing. Notably, five of the six DEGs in T4 and 29 of the 44 DEGs in T5 were downregulated. These results align with findings from Aktas et al., who reported 41 transcripts affected by prolonged CIT, including genes involved in cell cycle regulation, apoptosis, stress responses, and cancer progression [10]. Although this number seems modest, it might have significant implications for researchers focusing on specific genes, gene signatures, or pathways, particularly because these DEGs are closely linked to cancer development and progression. The broader impact of sample handling on the transcriptome varies widely across studies. von der Heyde et al. demonstrated that CIT exceeding 15 minutes significantly impact the expression of mRNAs, proteins, and phosphosites in tumor and normal tissues across colorectal cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma, lung adenocarcinoma, and lung squamous cell carcinoma. The authors stressed that the impact of ischemia time is more pronounced at the proteomic and phosphoproteomic levels than at the mRNA level, with mRNA expression showing comparatively weaker and more homogeneous changes across cancer types [35]. Using microarrays, Musella et al. found minimal effects, detecting only 0.2% DEGs in normal colon tissue and colorectal carcinoma within 6 hours, though two identified DEGs were oncogenes [17]. In contrast, Spruessel et al. applying the same genotyping technique, reported significant changes, with 20% of detectable genes and proteins altered within 30 minutes post-excision [1]. Grizzle et al. noted that while most studies found only 1–3% of transcripts affected, they often overlooked the functional impact of these genes [33]. Our findings underscore that while RNA integrity remains stable within the first 30 minutes, transcriptional changes begin to emerge beyond this point. Even within a 60-minute CIT window, the occurring transcriptional changes can potentially alter the results of studies exploring cancer and adjacent tissue genetics. These observations highlight the importance of rapid tissue processing for accurate transcriptomic analyses in cancer research.

Our analysis focused on genes involved in cancer development and progression, as they are crucial for the studies of tumor margins and tissues adjacent to the tumor, where changes in the transcriptome may be subtle [21]. The results demonstrate the impact of hypoxia on EMT, a process crucial for embryonic development and tissue regeneration, which is aberrantly reactivated in cancer to drive progression and metastasis through enhanced migration, invasiveness, stemness, and resistance to therapies [36]. Genes such as SNAI, CDH1, MMP9, and S100A8, which play critical roles in the EMT in cancer, exhibited significantly altered expression levels (adjusted p-value < 0.05) in our analysis. Snail (SNAI1) and Slug (SNAI2) are transcription factors known to bind to the promoter of CDH1, encoding E-cadherin, to repress its transcription [37]. The suppression of CDH1, regulated by SNAI, is a key driver of EMT, contributing to cancer progression by promoting invasion and metastasis, and is recognized as a marker of malignancy and poor clinical prognosis [38]. In our study, prolonged CIT caused significant alterations in the expression of SNAI and CDH1, with upregulation of SNAI and downregulation of CDH1. Moreover, the observed upregulation of MMP9, likely induced by CIT, may reflect further malignant changes as MMP family members facilitate cancer cell invasion and metastasis [36]. These changes, often linked to malignancy, may be misinterpreted as early indicators of tumor progression in research on adjacent tissues. However, our findings suggest that these alterations result from prolonged CIT.

To gain an insight into complex biological mechanisms affected by CIT, we performed enrichment analysis of DEGs using two complementary approaches: a direct analysis of all DEGs and a WGCNA-based analysis of the two resulting modules, both evaluated through GO and KEGG. The direct DEG analysis provided a broad view of the pathways enriched across all DEGs, whereas WGCNA highlighted context-specific pathways within co-regulated gene modules.

GO and KEGG analyses of all DEGs identified malignancy-associated pathways, including apoptosis, ABC transporters, and TNF signaling, as well as stress response pathways (S4 Table in S1 File). In comparison, other transcriptomic studies identified alteration of pathways linked to apoptosis, stress responses, cell cycle regulation, and cancer progression [10], as well as those associated with stimulus response and signal transduction [32]. Bray et al. found no consistent gene ontology or pathway among 168 transcripts altered within 120 minutes of CIT, highlighting a complex cellular response [16]. In our study, despite targeting over 600 cancer-related genes, pathway enrichment was broad, supporting Bray et al.‘s conclusions (S4 Table in S1 File).

WGCNA identified two significantly downregulated co-expressed gene modules, ME2 and ME4, with distinct functional patterns (S7 Table in S1 File). ME2 was primarily linked to apoptosis, with GO highlighting pathways like the execution phase of apoptosis and extrinsic apoptotic signaling, while KEGG linked it to FoxO, Hippo, and p53 signaling pathways. These findings underscore CIT’s significant impact on apoptosis-related pathways within 60 minutes, potentially confounding studies that do not account for its effects. ME4 was enriched for metabolic pathways, including catabolic processes, homeostasis, pyruvate metabolism (GO), glycolysis/gluconeogenesis, and choline metabolism in cancer (KEGG). Both modules featured HIF-1 and cancer-related pathways, illustrating CIT’s dual impact on apoptosis and metabolism, complicating transcriptomic interpretations. These findings align with reports of ischemia-induced changes in CRC, affecting oncogenes and histone-related genes involved in nucleosome organization, cell cycle, DNA replication, and p53 signaling, beginning at 8–10 minutes [1] and persisting up to 60 minutes [17]. Notably, ME4 exhibited minimal differences between T4 and T5, whereas ME2 showed a more pronounced variation between these time points, suggesting a slower reaction to CIT (Fig 2A).

Our study highlights that beyond RNA degradation, ischemic stress actively alters gene expression, emphasizing the need to standardize CIT in human tissue collection. The consistency of our observations suggests these transcriptomic changes stem from surgical and tissue handling procedures rather than malignancy. A key strength of our study is the use of NGS RNA-seq, which offers greater sensitivity and accuracy than microarrays [11,17], enabling robust detection of gene expression changes, even at low levels. Unlike previous studies, our approach analyzes over 600 genes, allowing a broader transcriptomic assessment. However, limitations include a small sample size and potential influences from enzymatic activity, warm ischemia, and other preanalytical factors [2,39]. Additionally, our analysis used a targeted cancer-related gene panel, which does not capture all transcriptomic changes.

Conclusion

Our study highlights the significant impact of CIT on the transcriptomic profile of healthy colon mucosa, with a particular focus on cancer-related genes. Using targeted RNA sequencing and robust analyses, we identified differentially expressed genes primarily associated with apoptosis, hypoxia, and EMT, as well as pathways involved in cancer development and progression. Our findings underscore the importance of considering CIT as a critical preanalytical variable, as prolonged ischemia can alter gene expression in ways that may mimic malignant changes, leading to misinterpretations of results and incorrect clinical conclusions. Importantly, our results suggest that CIT should be kept up to 30 minutes to minimize its impact on transcriptomic profiles. However, as the effects of CIT might be tissue-dependent, this recommendation should be applied with caution when extrapolating to other tissues. While our analysis focused exclusively on transcriptomic changes, future studies employing multi-omic approaches are essential to fully characterize cold ischemia-related molecular alterations.

Supporting information

S1 File. Patient information, gene panel design and transcriptomic analyses results.

(XLSX)

pone.0321432.s001.xlsx (344.9KB, xlsx)

Acknowledgments

We thank all the anonymous patients for acceptance to participate, sample contribution and information provided in the questionnaire. We also thank surgeons, and nurses involved in the patient recruitment process, collaborating technicians, diagnosticians and pathologists from University Clinical Centre in Gdańsk.

Data Availability

All relevant data for this study are publicly available from the European Genome-phenome Archive (EGA) (https://ega-archive.org/datasets/EGAD00001015661).

Funding Statement

This study was supported by the Foundation for Polish Science (FNP) under the International Research Agendas Program to J.P.D. and A.P., co-financed by the European Union under the European Regional Development Fund (MAB/2018/6); and the Ministry of Science and Higher Education, (grant No. 2/566516/ SPUB/SP/2023) to L.K.

References

  • 1.Spruessel A, Steimann G, Jung M, Lee SA, Carr T, Fentz A-K, et al. Tissue ischemia time affects gene and protein expression patterns within minutes following surgical tumor excision. Biotechniques. 2004;36(6):1030–7. doi: 10.2144/04366RR04 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Galissier T, Schneider C, Nasri S, Kanagaratnam L, Fichel C, Coquelet C, et al. Biobanking of fresh-frozen human adenocarcinomatous and normal colon tissues: which parameters influence RNA quality?. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0154326. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0154326 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Conroy MC, Lacey B, Bešević J, Omiyale W, Feng Q, Effingham M, et al. UK Biobank: a globally important resource for cancer research. Br J Cancer. 2023;128(4):519–27. doi: 10.1038/s41416-022-02053-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Filipowicz N, Drężek K, Horbacz M, Wojdak A, Szymanowski J, Rychlicka-Buniowska E, et al. Comprehensive cancer-oriented biobanking resource of human samples for studies of post-zygotic genetic variation involved in cancer predisposition. PLoS One. 2022;17(4):e0266111. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0266111 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Bonizzi G, Zattoni L, Capra M, Cassi C, Taliento G, Ivanova M, et al. Standard operating procedures for biobank in oncology. Front Mol Biosci. 2022;9:967310. doi: 10.3389/fmolb.2022.967310 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Foley ME, Vinson AJ, Skinner TAA, Kiberd BA, Tennankore KK. The Impact of Combined Warm and Cold Ischemia Time on Post-transplant Outcomes. Can J Kidney Health Dis. 2023;10:20543581231178960. doi: 10.1177/20543581231178960 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Pedersen IS, Thomassen M, Tan Q, Kruse T, Thorlacius-Ussing O, Garne JP, et al. Differential effect of surgical manipulation on gene expression in normal breast tissue and breast tumor tissue. Mol Med. 2018;24(1):57. doi: 10.1186/s10020-018-0058-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Ma Y, Dai H, Kong X. Impact of warm ischemia on gene expression analysis in surgically removed biosamples. Anal Biochem. 2012;423(2):229–35. doi: 10.1016/j.ab.2012.02.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Shabihkhani M, Lucey GM, Wei B, Mareninov S, Lou JJ, Vinters HV, et al. The procurement, storage, and quality assurance of frozen blood and tissue biospecimens in pathology, biorepository, and biobank settings. Clin Biochem. 2014;47(4–5):258–66. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2014.01.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Aktas B, Sun H, Yao H, Shi W, Hubbard R, Zhang Y, et al. Global gene expression changes induced by prolonged cold ischemic stress and preservation method of breast cancer tissue. Mol Oncol. 2014;8(3):717–27. doi: 10.1016/j.molonc.2014.02.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Liu NW, Sanford T, Srinivasan R, Liu JL, Khurana K, Aprelikova O. Impact of Ischemia and Procurement Conditions on Gene Expression in Renal Cell Carcinoma. Clinical Cancer Research. 2013;19:42–9. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-12-2606 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Bao W-G, Zhang X, Zhang J-G, Zhou W-J, Bi T-N, Wang J-C, et al. Biobanking of fresh-frozen human colon tissues: impact of tissue ex-vivo ischemia times and storage periods on RNA quality. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20(5):1737–44. doi: 10.1245/s10434-012-2440-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Micke P, Ohshima M, Tahmasebpoor S, Ren Z-P, Ostman A, Pontén F, et al. Biobanking of fresh frozen tissue: RNA is stable in nonfixed surgical specimens. Lab Invest. 2006;86(2):202–11. doi: 10.1038/labinvest.3700372 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Viana CR, Neto CS, Kerr LM, Palmero EI, Marques MMC, Colaiacovo T, et al. The interference of cold ischemia time in the quality of total RNA from frozen tumor samples. Cell Tissue Bank. 2013;14(2):167–73. doi: 10.1007/s10561-012-9313-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Zeugner S, Mayr T, Zietz C, Aust DE, Baretton GB. RNA quality in fresh-frozen gastrointestinal tumor specimens-experiences from the tumor and healthy tissue bank TU Dresden. Recent Results Cancer Res. 2015;199:85–93. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-13957-9_9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Bray SE, Paulin FEM, Fong SC, Baker L, Carey FA, Levison DA, et al. Gene expression in colorectal neoplasia: modifications induced by tissue ischaemic time and tissue handling protocol. Histopathology. 2010;56(2):240–50. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2559.2009.03470.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Musella V, Verderio P, Reid JF, Pizzamiglio S, Gariboldi M, Callari M. Effects of warm ischemic time on gene expression profiling in colorectal cancer tissues and normal mucosa. PLoS One. 2013;8:e53406. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0053406 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Zhou L, Xu G, Huang F, Chen W, Zhang J, Tang Y. Apoptosis related genes mediated molecular subtypes depict the hallmarks of the tumor microenvironment and guide immunotherapy in bladder cancer. BMC Med Genomics. 2023;16(1):88. doi: 10.1186/s12920-023-01525-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Li D, Li L, Yang W, Chen L, Chen X, Wang Q, et al. Prognostic values of SNAI family members in breast cancer patients. Ann Transl Med. 2020;8(15):922. doi: 10.21037/atm-20-681 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.van’t Veer LJ, Bernards R. Enabling personalized cancer medicine through analysis of gene-expression patterns. Nature. 2008;452(7187):564–70. doi: 10.1038/nature06915 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Andreou M, Jąkalski M, Duzowska K, Filipowicz N, Kostecka A, Davies H, et al. Prelude to malignancy: A gene expression signature in normal mammary gland from breast cancer patients suggests pre-tumorous alterations and is associated with adverse outcomes. Int J Cancer. 2024;155(9):1616–28. doi: 10.1002/ijc.35050 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Mieczkowska A, Schumacher A, Filipowicz N, Wardowska A, Zieliński M, Madanecki P, et al. Immunophenotyping and transcriptional profiling of in vitro cultured human adipose tissue derived stem cells. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):11339. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-29477-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Matsubara T, Soh J, Morita M, Uwabo T, Tomida S, Fujiwara T, et al. DV200 Index for Assessing RNA Integrity in Next-Generation Sequencing. Biomed Res Int. 2020;2020:9349132. doi: 10.1155/2020/9349132 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Dobin A, Davis CA, Schlesinger F, Drenkow J, Zaleski C, Jha S, et al. STAR: ultrafast universal RNA-seq aligner. Bioinformatics. 2013;29(1):15–21. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bts635 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Robinson MD, Oshlack A. A scaling normalization method for differential expression analysis of RNA-seq data. Genome Biol. 2010;11(3):R25. doi: 10.1186/gb-2010-11-3-r25 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Lê S, Josse J, Husson F. FactoMineR: An R Package for Multivariate Analysis. J Stat Softw. 2008;25. doi: 10.18637/jss.v025.i01 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Zhang Y, Parmigiani G, Johnson WE. ComBat-seq: batch effect adjustment for RNA-seq count data. NAR Genom Bioinform. 2020;2(3):lqaa078. doi: 10.1093/nargab/lqaa078 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Langfelder P, Horvath S. WGCNA: an R package for weighted correlation network analysis. BMC Bioinformatics. 2008;9:559. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-9-559 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Ritchie ME, Phipson B, Wu D, Hu Y, Law CW, Shi W, et al. limma powers differential expression analyses for RNA-sequencing and microarray studies. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015;43(7):e47. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkv007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Liao Y, Wang J, Jaehnig EJ, Shi Z, Zhang B. WebGestalt 2019: gene set analysis toolkit with revamped UIs and APIs. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019;47:W199–205. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkz401 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Vasaikar SV, Deshmukh AP, den Hollander P, Addanki S, Kuburich NA, Kudaravalli S, et al. EMTome: a resource for pan-cancer analysis of epithelial-mesenchymal transition genes and signatures. Br J Cancer. 2021;124(1):259–69. doi: 10.1038/s41416-020-01178-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Borgan E, Navon R, Vollan HKM, Schlichting E, Sauer T, Yakhini Z, et al. Ischemia caused by time to freezing induces systematic microRNA and mRNA responses in cancer tissue. Mol Oncol. 2011;5(6):564–76. doi: 10.1016/j.molonc.2011.08.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Grizzle WE, Otali D, Sexton KC, Atherton DS. Effects of Cold Ischemia on Gene Expression: A Review and Commentary. Biopreserv Biobank. 2016;14(6):548–58. doi: 10.1089/bio.2016.0013 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Heumüller-Klug S, Sticht C, Kaiser K, Wink E, Hagl C, Wessel L, et al. Degradation of intestinal mRNA: a matter of treatment. World J Gastroenterol. 2015;21(12):3499–508. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i12.3499 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.von der Heyde S, Raman N, Gabelia N, Matias-Guiu X, Yoshino T, Tsukada Y, et al. Tumor specimen cold ischemia time impacts molecular cancer drug target discovery. Cell Death Dis. 2024;15(9):691. doi: 10.1038/s41419-024-07090-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Huang Y, Hong W, Wei X. The molecular mechanisms and therapeutic strategies of EMT in tumor progression and metastasis. J Hematol Oncol. 2022;15(1):129. doi: 10.1186/s13045-022-01347-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Tam SY, Wu VWC, Law HKW. Hypoxia-Induced Epithelial-Mesenchymal Transition in Cancers: HIF-1α and Beyond. Front Oncol. 2020. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2020.00486 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Cano A, Pérez-Moreno MA, Rodrigo I, Locascio A, Blanco MJ, del Barrio MG, et al. The transcription factor snail controls epithelial-mesenchymal transitions by repressing E-cadherin expression. Nat Cell Biol. 2000;2(2):76–83. doi: 10.1038/35000025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Medeiros F, Rigl CT, Anderson GG, Becker SH, Halling KC. Tissue handling for genome-wide expression analysis: a review of the issues, evidence, and opportunities. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2007;131(12):1805–16. doi: 10.5858/2007-131-1805-THFGEA [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Yingkun Xu

17 Oct 2025

PONE-D-25-11860

The effect of cold ischemia time on hypoxia, EMT, and apoptosis pathways in normal colon mucosa

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Filipowicz,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we have decided that your manuscript does not meet our criteria for publication and must therefore be rejected.

Specifically:

After careful consideration of the reviewer comments and editorial assessment, we regret to inform you that we are unable to proceed with publication.

Your findings on how cold ischemia time (CIT) may affect gene expression in normal colon mucosa are clearly presented and technically sound. However, the study remains largely descriptive, and the conclusions regarding cancer-related transcriptional changes are not directly supported by functional validation. Moreover, the focus on normal tissue limits the broader applicability of the findings.

Given these limitations, we do not believe the manuscript meets the publication criteria for PLOS ONE in its current form. We thank you again for considering the journal and encourage you to further develop this work for submission elsewhere.

I am sorry that we cannot be more positive on this occasion, but hope that you appreciate the reasons for this decision.

Kind regards,

Yingkun Xu, M.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. We appreciate the thoughtful study design and attention to data quality.

After careful consideration of the reviewer comments and editorial assessment, we regret to inform you that we are unable to proceed with publication.

Your findings on how cold ischemia time (CIT) may affect gene expression in normal colon mucosa are clearly presented and technically sound. However, the study remains largely descriptive, and the conclusions regarding cancer-related transcriptional changes are not directly supported by functional validation. Moreover, the focus on normal tissue limits the broader applicability of the findings.

Given these limitations, we do not believe the manuscript meets the publication criteria for PLOS ONE in its current form. We thank you again for considering the journal and encourage you to further develop this work for submission elsewhere.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: accepted.

explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) (Limit 200 to 20000 Characters)

Reviewer #2: The paper explains the effect of cold ischemia time (CIT) and its importance in transcriptomic studies and reproducibility. The study objective evaluating CIT effects on cancer-related genes is relevant and practical. The findings from this study suggest a CIT limit (≤45–60 min), information that is valuable for the research community.

The number of samples, patient count and CIT intervals are clearly described but whether all 54 samples were paired per patient across all time points needs further clarification.

Overall, the analysis is comprehensive. The combination of RNA-seq, functional enrichment and WGCNA strengthens the biological interpretation. Identifying DEGs and linking them to apoptosis, hypoxia, EMT and cancer-related pathways is relevant and informative.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

- - - - -

For journal use only: PONEDEC3

PLoS One. 2026 Mar 20;21(3):e0321432. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0321432.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


3 Nov 2025

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and does the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: accepted.

explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) (Limit 200 to 20000 Characters)

Reviewer #2: The paper explains the effect of cold ischemia time (CIT) and its importance in transcriptomic studies and reproducibility. The study objective evaluating CIT effects on cancer-related genes is relevant and practical. The findings from this study suggest a CIT limit (≤45–60 min), information that is valuable for the research community.

The number of samples, patient count and CIT intervals are clearly described but whether all 54 samples were paired per patient across all time points needs further clarification.

Answer: All 54 samples used in our study originate from 9 CRC patients, with samples collected at 6 distinct time points as defined in the manuscript (9 patients × 6 time points = 54 samples). Thus, each patient contributed one sample per time point, resulting in a fully paired dataset.

We accounted for the paired nature of the RNAseq data by treating the patient ID as batch and removing its effect from the data with ComBat-seq. The sentence clarifying this was modified in lines 173-175.

Overall, the analysis is comprehensive. The combination of RNA-seq, functional enrichment and WGCNA strengthens the biological interpretation. Identifying DEGs and linking them to apoptosis, hypoxia, EMT and cancer-related pathways is relevant and informative.

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONED2511860_Responses_to_Reviewers.docx

pone.0321432.s004.docx (18.1KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Aniruddha Datta

30 Dec 2025

Dear Dr. Filipowicz,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

As you can see from the reviews, two of the reviewers have recommended acceptance while a third one has raised some concerns. Therefore, we are asking you to address those concerns in a revised version. If some or all of these concerns cannot be addressed, please provide clear justification about why that is not possible.

plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

  • A letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Aniruddha Datta

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

"This study was supported by the Foundation for Polish Science (FNP) under the International Research Agendas Program to J.P.D. and A.P., co-financed by the European Union under the European Regional Development Fund (MAB/2018/6); and the Ministry of Science and Higher Education, (grant No. 2/566516/ SPUB/SP/2023) to L.K.

Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

4. We note that there is identifying data in the supporting information <Duzowska_et_al_Supplementary_tables.xlsx>. Due to the inclusion of these potentially identifying data, we have removed this file from your file inventory. Prior to sharing human research participant data, authors should consult with an ethics committee to ensure data are shared in accordance with participant consent and all applicable local laws.

Data sharing should never compromise participant privacy. It is therefore not appropriate to publicly share personally identifiable data on human research participants. The following are examples of data that should not be shared:

-Name, initials, physical address

-Ages more specific than whole numbers

-Internet protocol (IP) address

-Specific dates (birth dates, death dates, examination dates, etc.)

-Contact information such as phone number or email address

-Location data

-ID numbers that seem specific (long numbers, include initials, titled “Hospital ID”) rather than random (small numbers in numerical order)

Data that are not directly identifying may also be inappropriate to share, as in combination they can become identifying. For example, data collected from a small group of participants, vulnerable populations, or private groups should not be shared if they involve indirect identifiers (such as sex, ethnicity, location, etc.) that may risk the identification of study participants.

Additional guidance on preparing raw data for publication can be found in our Data Policy (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-human-research-participant-data-and-other-sensitive-data) and in the following article: http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long.

Please remove or anonymize all personal information, ensure that the data shared are in accordance with participant consent, and re-upload a fully anonymized data set. Please note that spreadsheet columns with personal information must be removed and not hidden as all hidden columns will appear in the published file.

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

Reviewer #5: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

Reviewer #3: The authors have updated their manuscript with the comments and questions raised by the reviewers. I have no further feedback.

Reviewer #4: Summary

This study investigates the effect of cold ischemia time (CIT) on the transcriptomic profile of normal colonic mucosa, with specific attention to cancer-related pathways such as apoptosis, hypoxia, and epithelial–mesenchymal transition (EMT). The authors analyzed 54 normal mucosal samples from 9 colorectal cancer patients and performed RNA-seq under CIT conditions ranging from 0 to 60 minutes. The manuscript describes the experimental workflow, RNA quality assessment, differential expression analysis, WGCNA, and pathway enrichment.

In the Results, the authors report 44 significant DEGs between T0 and T5, enriched in apoptosis, hypoxia, and EMT pathways. They note minimal transcriptomic changes before T3, a small increase at T4 (6 DEGs), and a larger increase at T5. The Discussion proposes that CIT can induce tumor-like molecular signals and stresses the importance of controlling ischemia time during tissue acquisition. The authors recommend keeping CIT under 45 minutes.

Questions and Concerns

The proposed “safe CIT threshold” appears overly optimistic and contradicts multiple prior studies.

The manuscript recommends limiting CIT to 45–60 minutes to minimize molecular artifacts. However, previous literature shows that both gene and protein expression in colonic tissue can be significantly altered within minutes.

• Spruessel et al. demonstrated that a few minutes to 30 minutes of ischemia can markedly change gene and protein expression in colon samples:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15211754/

• von der Heyde et al. (2024, Cell Death & Disease, Nature Publishing Group) showed that proteomic dysregulation emerges above 15 minutes of ischemia:

“Specimen ischemia time above 15 min is mostly associated with a dysregulation of proteins in the immune-response pathway.”

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41419-024-07090-x

These findings suggest that the authors’ proposed CIT tolerance window may not be sufficiently conservative.

The study relies solely on mRNA measurements and lacks multi-omic validation.

No proteomic, immunohistochemical, or additional orthogonal assays are provided. This is a notable gap because proteomic alterations often occur earlier and more sensitively than transcriptomic changes.

For example, von der Heyde et al. (2024) report:

“The proteomics analysis revealed that specimen ischemia time above 15 min is mostly associated with a dysregulation of proteins in the immune-response pathway.”

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41419-024-07090-x

Without multi-omics confirmation, it is difficult to determine whether the reported mRNA changes reflect true biological responses or early degradation phenomena.

Warm ischemia time (WIT) is acknowledged but not recorded or modeled, which is inconsistent with established standards.

Although the authors state that WIT is important, they do not:

• document each patient’s WIT;

• include WIT as a covariate in statistical models (e.g., edgeR, linear models);

• analyze interactions between WIT and CIT.

This is problematic because prior work has emphasized that WIT must be explicitly accounted for. Musella et al. (2013) show that both WIT and CIT shape molecular stability in colon tissue:

“A critical time point for tissue handling in colon seems to be 60 minutes at room temperature … accounting for warm ischemia in this tumor type.”

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0053406

Without controlling for WIT, the attribution of transcriptional changes solely to CIT is not well supported.

Reviewer #5: This manuscript presents a well-designed and carefully executed study examining the impact of cold ischemia time (CIT) on transcriptomic profiles of normal colon mucosa. The topic is timely and highly relevant, as preanalytical variables such as CIT remain a major source of variability and irreproducibility in transcriptomic and biobanking-based research.

The experimental design is a clear strength of the study. The use of paired samples collected from the same patients at multiple predefined time points provides strong internal control and allows for a robust assessment of time-dependent transcriptional changes. The application of RNA sequencing combined with functional enrichment analysis and WGCNA is appropriate and well justified, and the statistical analyses are performed rigorously and transparently. The clarification regarding the fully paired nature of the dataset and the use of ComBat-seq to account for patient-specific effects adequately addresses potential concerns about confounding.

The results are clearly presented and convincingly demonstrate that prolonged CIT induces transcriptional changes in pathways related to hypoxia, apoptosis, EMT, and cancer-associated signaling, even in morphologically normal tissue. The identification of a practical CIT threshold (≤45–60 minutes) is particularly valuable and provides actionable guidance for researchers involved in tissue collection, biobanking, and transcriptomic analyses.

The manuscript is generally well written, logically structured, and accessible to a broad readership. The discussion appropriately contextualizes the findings within existing literature and highlights both the strengths and limitations of the study, including sample size and the use of a targeted gene panel.

Overall, this work represents a solid and meaningful contribution to the field of preanalytical variability and transcriptomic research. The conclusions are well supported by the data, and the study should be of broad interest to researchers working with human tissues, particularly in cancer and biobanking contexts.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-25-11860_R1.pdf

pone.0321432.s003.pdf (3.2MB, pdf)
PLoS One. 2026 Mar 20;21(3):e0321432. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0321432.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 2


26 Jan 2026

PONE-D-25-11860R1 “The effect of cold ischemia time on hypoxia, EMT, and apoptosis pathways in normal colon mucosa”

Answers to the comments:

Comment 1:

The proposed “safe CIT threshold” appears overly optimistic and contradicts multiple prior studies. The manuscript recommends limiting CIT to 45–60 minutes to minimize molecular artifacts. However, previous literature shows that both gene and protein expression in colonic tissue can be significantly altered within minutes.

• Spruessel et al. demonstrated that a few minutes to 30 minutes of ischemia can markedly change gene and protein expression in colon samples: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15211754/

• von der Heyde et al. (2024, Cell Death & Disease, Nature Publishing Group) showed that proteomic dysregulation emerges above 15 minutes of ischemia:

“Specimen ischemia time above 15 min is mostly associated with a dysregulation of proteins in the immune-response pathway.”

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41419-024-07090-x

These findings suggest that the authors’ proposed CIT tolerance window may not be sufficiently conservative.

Answer 1:

Thank you for this valuable comment.

Our original recommendation of a 45–60 minutes CIT threshold was based strictly on the results obtained in the present study, which employed a targeted transcriptomic approach covering 634 genes primarily involved in apoptosis, cell death, hypoxia, epithelial to mesenchymal transition (EMT), and cancer related pathways. Within this restricted gene set and thorough analytical framework, we did not observe statistically significant transcriptional changes within the first 30 minutes post excision. The earliest detectable alterations were observed between 30 and 45 minutes, with a substantially larger number of differentially expressed genes emerging after 45 minutes.

After careful consideration of the reviewer’s comment and the cited literature, we agree that a more conservative recommendation is warranted. We have therefore revised the manuscript to propose a stricter CIT threshold of ≤30 minutes, which better aligns with existing evidence and reflects a precautionary approach. Corresponding changes have been made in the manuscript (lines 50 and 402).

We also acknowledge that our findings may appear contradictory to several previous studies on CIT. This discrepancy is already discussed in the Discussion section, where we cite selection of articles on CIT (lines 304-334) including Spruessel et al. and von der Heyde et al. (2024). We now modified slightly this section by adding information from von der Heyde et al. on ischemia time being more pronounced at the proteomic and phosphoproteomic levels than at the mRNA level (lines 319-321). We would also like to stress that we do not claim in our paper that the CIT threshold guidelines would be applicable to all kinds of studies, including proteomics.

We believe that the revised recommendation of a ≤30 minute CIT threshold, along with a clearer contextualization of our results to other transcriptomic and proteomic studies, strengthens the manuscript.

Comment 2:

The study relies solely on mRNA measurements and lacks multi-omic validation. No proteomic, immunohistochemical, or additional orthogonal assays are provided. This is a notable gap because proteomic alterations often occur earlier and more sensitively than transcriptomic changes.

For example, von der Heyde et al. (2024) report: “The proteomics analysis revealed that specimen ischemia time above 15 min is mostly associated with a dysregulation of proteins in the immune-response pathway. ”https://www.nature.com/articles/s41419-024-07090-x

Without multi-omics confirmation, it is difficult to determine whether the reported mRNA changes reflect true biological responses or early degradation phenomena.

Answer 2:

We appreciate this thoughtful comment highlighting the importance of multi-omic approaches in assessing tissue quality and preanalytical variables. We agree that proteomic and other assays can offer complementary insights, particularly regarding early ischemia-related changes that may not be immediately reflected at the transcript level. However, our study was intentionally focused on transcriptomic profiling, using a targeted panel of 634 genes related to apoptosis, hypoxia, cell death, and cancer progression. This approach, although narrower than full transcriptome or proteome analysis, was chosen for its clinical relevance and feasibility in standardizing preanalytical workflows. Due to technical and resource constraints, multi-omic validation was beyond the scope of the current study. We believe that our results offer a practical, transcriptome-focused reference point that can guide tissue handling protocols and inform future integrative studies. To stress limitation of our approach we added additional sentence in the Conclusion section (lines 405-407).

Comment 3:

Warm ischemia time (WIT) is acknowledged but not recorded or modeled, which is inconsistent with established standards. Although the authors state that WIT is important, they do not:

• document each patient’s WIT;

• include WIT as a covariate in statistical models (e.g., edgeR, linear models);

• analyze interactions between WIT and CIT.

This is problematic because prior work has emphasized that WIT must be explicitly accounted for. Musella et al. (2013) show that both WIT and CIT shape molecular stability in colon tissue: “A critical time point for tissue handling in colon seems to be 60 minutes at room temperature … accounting for warm ischemia in this tumor type.”

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0053406

Without controlling for WIT, the attribution of transcriptional changes solely to CIT is not well supported.

Answer 3:

Thank you very much for this important comment. We fully agree that warm ischemia time (WIT) is a critical preanalytical factor and appreciate the opportunity to clarify our rationale and study limitations regarding this aspect.

As noted in the introduction (lines 56–70), we acknowledge the impact of WIT on gene expression and reference prior studies addressing its role. In our setting, WIT could not be precisely measured for each patient due to the clinical priority of ensuring a safe and effective surgical outcome. WIT, defined as the period during which the tissue remains in the body without effective oxygen supply, is inherently difficult to standardize and control, especially during open surgical procedures.

In case of our cohort all the procedures were performed using an open surgical approach, which minimizes warm ischemia time (WIT) by allowing immediate specimen extraction following devascularization. In contrast, laparoscopic and robotic approaches require placement of the devascularized specimen into an extraction bag, with removal occurring only at the completion of the procedure. In the present case series, all operations consisted of left-sided colectomies or rectal resections, with operative times ranging from 1 hour 15 minutes to 3 hours 20 minutes. Considering the open approach and the review specific technical aspects of the procedures, it is reasonable to assume that WIT did not exceed 40 minutes in any case. This variable should be considered unmodifiable, as it is largely determined by intra-abdominal anatomical conditions.

We respectfully note that although we cited Musella et al. (2013) to highlight preanalytical variability, the ischemia time discussed in their study appears to align more closely with cold ischemia time (CIT), not WIT. In the methods section, they state that “the time was measured starting from patient’s surgical excision and the first timepoint analysed (T0)”, indicating that their 60-minute measurement refers to ex-vivo conditions.

Taking all of these into account we recognized the importance of addressing this limitation in a transparent way. We have now added a suitable statement regarding WIT in the Materials and Methods: “Study Design and Sample Handling” (lines 116-124) emphasizing the use of open surgery, estimated upper limit of WIT and difficulty recording patient-specific WIT under current surgical protocols.

We hope this provides clarity and adequately addresses the reviewer’s concern.

Attachment

Submitted filename: 20260121_PONED2511860_responses_to_reviewers.docx

pone.0321432.s005.docx (21.7KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Aniruddha Datta

4 Mar 2026

The effect of cold ischemia time on hypoxia, EMT, and apoptosis pathways in normal colon mucosa

PONE-D-25-11860R2

Dear Dr. Filipowicz,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Aniruddha Datta

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

Reviewer #4: The authors have adequately addressed the major concerns. The recommended CIT threshold has been revised to ≤30 minutes and appropriately contextualized relative to prior literature. The conclusions are now clearly restricted to transcriptomic findings within the targeted gene panel.

Limitations regarding the lack of multi-omic validation and the absence of patient-specific WIT measurements are transparently acknowledged. While these constraints remain, they do not undermine the validity of the presented data within the defined scope.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #4: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Aniruddha Datta

PONE-D-25-11860R2

PLOS One

Dear Dr. Filipowicz,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS One. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Aniruddha Datta

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Patient information, gene panel design and transcriptomic analyses results.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0321432.s001.xlsx (344.9KB, xlsx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONED2511860_Responses_to_Reviewers.docx

    pone.0321432.s004.docx (18.1KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-25-11860_R1.pdf

    pone.0321432.s003.pdf (3.2MB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: 20260121_PONED2511860_responses_to_reviewers.docx

    pone.0321432.s005.docx (21.7KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data for this study are publicly available from the European Genome-phenome Archive (EGA) (https://ega-archive.org/datasets/EGAD00001015661).


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES