Abstract B49: Substantial performance differences among RNA purification kits and blood collection tubes in the Extracellular RNA Quality Control study—important considerations for liquid biopsies
Authors: Decock Anneleen , Anckaert Jasper , Everaert Celine , Nuytens Justine , Kuersten Scott , Hendrix An , Vandesompele Jo , Mestdagh Pieter , Dhondt Bert , Van Paemel Ruben , Verniers Kimberly , Schroth Gary , Fierro Carolina , Yigit Nurten , Schoofs Kathleen , Morlion Annelien , Deleu Jill , Hulstaert Eva , Cobos Francisco Avila , Nijs Nele , Eynde Eveline Vanden , Helsmoortel Hetty Hilde , De Wever Olivier , Philippron Annouck 
Published: June 2020

Cancer biomarker studies require procedures that provide accurate and precise test results with high analytical sensitivity. Consequently, the growing use of extracellular RNA from human biofluids as clinically relevant biomarker requires the implementation of benchmarked methods for sample collection, processing, and profiling. While several small-scale studies have pointed at the impact of individual preanalytical factors, no comprehensive study has addressed the many preanalytical variables affecting downstream sequencing of blood-derived exRNAs. In the Extracellular RNA Quality Control study, we have systematically evaluated the type of blood collection tube (n=10, including 5 so-called preservation tubes), the time between blood draw and plasma preparation (n=3), different plasma types (n=3, i.e., platelet-free, -poor, and -rich plasma), and RNA purification methods using the supplier-specified minimum and maximum plasma input volumes (n=15). The impact of these preanalytical factors is assessed by deep transcriptome profiling of all small and messenger RNAs from healthy donors’ plasma, using TruSeq Small RNA sequencing and TruSeq RNA Exome sequencing, respectively. All experiments are conducted in triplicate (for a total of 270 transcriptomes) using 191 synthetic RNA spike-in molecules as processing controls over a relevant dynamic range. When comparing blood collection tubes, serum mRNA seems very similar to EDTA plasma mRNA, but serum-derived small RNAs are markedly different in biotype composition compared to their plasma counterparts. Furthermore, several plasma tubes with preservation reagents do not stabilize RNA very well, as is reflected by increasing RNA concentrations and number of detected genes over time. Also, their reproducibility is generally compromised. In addition, we demonstrate large differences in RNA purification kit performance in terms of reproducibility, sensitivity, and observed transcriptome complexity. Among others, we note a 50-fold difference in mRNA yield and a 5-fold difference in the number of detected mRNAs. We summarized the results in 12 performance parameters that enable an informed selection of the most optimal sample processing workflow. In conclusion, using a systematic approach, we put forward robust quality control metrics for exRNA quantification methods with validated SOPs for sample collection, processing, and profiling. Our results are crucially important for all future RNA-based liquid biopsy-guided precision oncology applications. Authors in random order; abstract submitted on behalf of the exRNAQC Consortium.

Citation Format: Anneleen Decock, Jasper Anckaert, Celine Everaert, Justine Nuytens, Scott Kuersten, An Hendrix, Jo Vandesompele, Pieter Mestdagh, Bert Dhondt, Ruben Van Paemel, Kimberly Verniers, Gary Schroth, Carolina Fierro, Nurten Yigit, Kathleen Schoofs, Annelien Morlion, Jill Deleu, Eva Hulstaert, Francisco Avila Cobos, Nele Nijs, Eveline Vanden Eynde, Hetty Hilde Helsmoortel, Olivier De Wever, Annouck Philippron. Substantial performance differences among RNA purification kits and blood collection tubes in the Extracellular RNA Quality Control study—important considerations for liquid biopsies [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference on Advances in Liquid Biopsies; Jan 13-16, 2020; Miami, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2020;26(11_Suppl):Abstract nr B49.