Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 Feb 1.
Published in final edited form as: Pancreas. 2017 Feb;46(2):252–259. doi: 10.1097/MPA.0000000000000717

Table 3.

Univariate Effects of Sample Processing on RNA Quality Outcome

Name ≤4.5 RIN ≥6.5 RIN Odds
Ratio
95% CI p-value

n % n %

Region of Pancreas SampledA <0.01
  Head 23 34% 45 66% - - -
  Body 14 82% 3 18% 0.11 (0.02–0.38) <0.01
  Tail 35 71% 14 29% 0.20 (0.09–0.45) <0.01

Sample TypeB
  Vials 43 44% 55 56% - - -
  Blocks 32 71% 13 29% 0.32 (0.15–0.67) <0.01

Staff Performing RNA Extraction 0.53
  #1 50 49% 51 51% - - -
  #2 23 59% 16 41% 0.68 (0.32–1.43) 0.32
  #3 2 67% 1 33% 0.49 (0.02–5.27) 0.57

Sample Collection ProceduresC
  Original Protocol 63 71% 26 29% - - -
  New Protocol 12 22% 42 78% 8.48 (3.96–19.30) <0.01
A

Excluded 3 cases where region sampled was unknown

B

Vials contain minced tissue preserved in RNAlater; Blocks are composed of fresh frozen tissue embedded in OCT media. Vials and blocks represent total pancreatic RNA extracts. Laser capture islet-RNA was not included here.

C

Major difference is that, initially, after cleaning the pancreas, vials were routinely prepared following tissue block preservation but occasionally performed simultaneously, i.e. original protocol. Later, beginning with nPOD caseID 6170, vials were prepared first, before tissue block preservation, i.e. new protocol.