Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 2, 2026

Optimization for Sequencing and Analysis of Degraded FFPE-RNA Samples
Published on: June 8, 2020
The impact of RNA extraction method on accurate RNA sequencing from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissues
Michal Marczyk1,2, Chunxiao Fu3, Rosanna Lau3
1Yale Cancer Center, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Background:
Utilization of RNA sequencing methods to measure gene expression from archival formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tumor samples in translational research and clinical trials requires reliable interpretation of the impact of pre-analytical variables on the data obtained, particularly the methods used to preserve samples and to purify RNA.
Methods:
Matched tissue samples from 12 breast cancers were fresh frozen (FF) and preserved in RNAlater or fixed in formalin and processed as FFPE tissue. Total RNA was extracted and purified from FF samples using the Qiagen RNeasy kit, and in duplicate from FFPE tissue sections using three different kits (Norgen, Qiagen and Roche). All RNA samples underwent whole transcriptome RNA sequencing (wtRNAseq) and targeted RNA sequencing for 31 transcripts included in a signature of sensitivity to endocrine therapy. We assessed the effect of RNA extraction kit on the reliability of gene expression levels using linear mixed-effects model analysis, concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) and differential analysis. All protein-coding genes in the wtRNAseq and three gene expression signatures for breast cancer were assessed for concordance.
Results:
Despite variable quality of the RNA extracted from FFPE samples by different kits, all had similar concordance of overall gene expression from wtRNAseq between matched FF and FFPE samples (median CCC 0.63-0.66) and between technical replicates (median expression difference 0.13-0.22). More than half of genes were differentially expressed between FF and FFPE, but with low fold change (median |LFC| 0.31-0.34). Two out of three breast cancer signatures studied were highly robust in all samples using any kit, whereas the third signature was similarly discordant irrespective of the kit used. The targeted RNAseq assay was concordant between FFPE and FF samples using any of the kits (CCC 0.91-0.96).
Conclusions:
The selection of kit to purify RNA from FFPE did not influence the overall quality of results from wtRNAseq, thus variable reproducibility of gene signatures probably relates to the reliability of individual gene selected and possibly to the algorithm. Targeted RNAseq showed promising performance for clinical deployment of quantitative assays in breast cancer from FFPE samples, although numerical scores were not identical to those from wtRNAseq and would require calibration.
More Related Videos
08:30Preparation of Formalin-fixed Paraffin-embedded Tissue Cores for both RNA and DNA Extraction
Published on: August 21, 2016
12:53Collection and Processing of Lymph Nodes from Large Animals for RNA Analysis: Preparing for Lymph Node Transcriptomic Studies of Large Animal Species
Published on: May 19, 2018