Biopreservation and Biobanking最新文献

Data access committees (DACs) are critical players in the data sharing ecosystem. DACs review requests for access to data held in one or more repositories and where specific constraints determine how the data may be used and by whom. Our team surveyed DAC members affiliated with genomic data repositories worldwide to understand standard processes and procedures, operational metrics, bottlenecks, and efficiencies, as well as their perspectives on possible improvements to quality review. We found that DAC operations and systemic issues were common across repositories globally. In general, DAC members endeavored to achieve an appropriate balance of review efficiency, quality, and compliance. Our results suggest a similarly proportionate path forward that helps DACs pursue mutual improvements to efficiency and compliance without sacrificing review quality.

Background: PAXgene^® Blood RNA tubes are routinely used in clinical research and molecular biology applications to preserve the stability of RNA in whole blood. However, in practice, blood clots are occasionally observed after blood collection and are often ignored. Currently, there are few studies on whether blood clots affect the quality of RNA extracted from these tubes. Materials and Methods: Fifteen pairs of non-clot and clot PAXgene Blood RNA tube samples (n = 30) were collected to form two matched groups from 15 patients. According to the maximum diameter (d) of the blood clot observed visually at the time of sample reception, the clot groups were divided into a small-clot group (0 cm < d < 0.5 cm) and a large-clot group (d ≥ 0.5 cm). RNA was extracted by the PAXgene Blood RNA Kit. To analyze the quality of RNA, its yield and purity were assessed by spectrophotometry, and integrity was measured by microfluidic electrophoresis. An A_260/280 ratio between 1.8 and 2.2 indicated purified RNA, and RNA integrity number (RIN) values ≥7.0 were considered to represent qualified integrity. Results: The median yields of RNA from the non-clot and clot groups were 3.84 (2.80-6.38) μg and 4.87 (2.77-8.30) μg, respectively. The median A_260/280 ratios were 2.08 (2.06-2.09) and 2.09 (2.07-2.11), whereas the median A_260/230 ratios were 1.77 (1.31-1.91) and 1.67 (1.21-1.94) in the two groups. In addition, the median RINs were 8.20 (8.00-8.40) and 7.20 (6.60-7.70), respectively. There were no significant differences in RNA yields, A_260/280, or A_260/230 between the two groups. However, the RIN value of the clot group was significantly lower compared with the non-clot group (p < 0.05), with RIN ≥7.0 found in all non-clot samples and 60% of clot samples (p < 0.05). Furthermore, in the clot groups, the small-clot samples had higher RIN values than large-clot samples (8.25 [7.75-8.75] vs. 6.90 [6.60-7.30], p < 0.001). Conclusions: The formation of large blood clots in PAXgene Blood RNA tubes will reduce the integrity of extracted RNA.

There is no consensus on how to perform the manual extraction of nucleic acids from dried blood spots (DBSs). Current methods typically involve agitation of the DBSs in a solution for varying amounts of time with or without heat, and then purification of the eluted nucleic acids with a purification protocol. We explored several characteristics of genomic DNA (gDNA) DBS extraction such as extraction efficiency, the role of red blood cells (RBCs) in extraction and critical kinetic factors to understand if these protocols can be simplified while maintaining sufficient gDNA recovery. We found that agitation in a RBC lysis buffer before performing a DBS gDNA extraction protocol increases yield 1.5 to 5-fold, depending upon the anticoagulant used. The use of an alkaline lysing agent along with either heat or agitation was sufficient to elute quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) amplifiable gDNA in 5 minutes. This work adds insight into the extraction of gDNA from DBSs with the intention of informing a simple, standardized manual protocol for extraction.

Biobanking has become an increasingly important activity to provide resources for medical research support. In China, establishing and maintaining a biobank have been the latest trend in a research hospital. However, biobanking is still an emerging young field in terms of professionalization and professionalism. The development of professionalization in biobanking faces many challenges involving the development of skills, identities, norms, and values associated with becoming part of a professional group. Biobanking professionals (i.e., biobankers) are the most important factor and driving force toward professionalization in biobanking. To better understand biobankers' performance, needs, concerns, and career development, we conducted two comprehensive surveys among biobankers in China in 2019 and 2021, respectively. The questionnaires covered four major areas: (1) basic information and the status of biobankers; (2) job performance evaluation, salary, recognitions, rewards, and so on; (3) occupational training and career development; and (4) challenges and prospects and so on. The surveys revealed that most biobankers in China have positive working attitudes and a high desire for their future career development, but due to the uncertain evaluation mechanisms and promotion routes, etc., the participants were more optimistic about biobanking development compared to the biobanker's career development (77.0% and 57.4% respectively in 2021, p < 0.05). The biobankers expected more training opportunities and salary packages. Because biobankers are an integral factor and driving force to ensure the successful biobanking operation and advancement, the survey data analysis revealed interesting findings and references for the development of professionalism in biobanking. This survey will provide first-hand information to governments, biobank management teams, and the general public to further support, promote, or optimize (1) biobanking operation and sustainability, (2) biobankers' career development, (3) biobank management and quality control, and (4) strategic plans and approaches to establish a higher quality professional team of biobankers.

Biological samples are important resources for scientific research. These samples are stored in biobanks over years until needed, and some of them can never be retrieved if they are improperly stored, causing them to be wasted. Thus, they are priceless, and they should be used correctly and effectively. Sample quality substantially affects biomedical research results. However, sample misidentification or mix-up is common. It is necessary to establish quality standards for sample identification. In this study, we used the Advanta Sample ID genotyping panel to detect homology identification and cross-contamination. We compared the single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) typing results of two different samples and calculated the similarity score of homologous sample pairs and nonhomologous sample pairs. Through analysis, we obtained a similarity score cutoff point of 0.8620, which was an effective way to distinguish homology and nonhomology. Cross-contamination was detected in two sets of mixtures (STD8:STD6 and jj3:1-P) mixed at a series of special ratios. Sensitivity was dependent on the sample characteristics and mixing ratios. Finally, we assessed the effect of sample degradation degree on SNP genotyping and found that degraded samples with a minimal DNA integrity number of 1.9 had complete genotyping results. On the whole, this study shows that the Sample ID panel is reliable for homology identification and cross-contamination analysis. Moreover, this technology has promising further applications in biological sample quality control.