Publication:
The impact of cytological preparation techniques on RNA quality: a comparative study on smear samples

dc.contributor.coauthorSanioglu, Elif Sevin (60190048200)
dc.contributor.departmentSchool of Medicine
dc.contributor.departmentKUIS AI (Koç University & İş Bank Artificial Intelligence Center)
dc.contributor.departmentKUTTAM (Koç University Research Center for Translational Medicine)
dc.contributor.departmentKUH (Koç University Hospital)
dc.contributor.kuauthorMeriçöz, Çisel Aydın
dc.contributor.kuauthorÇaylak, Gülsüm
dc.contributor.kuauthorSatılmış, Zeynep Seçil Atakan
dc.contributor.kuauthorDur Karasayar, Ayşe Hümeyra
dc.contributor.kuauthorKulaç, İbrahim
dc.contributor.kuauthorŞanioğlu, Şevin Elif
dc.contributor.schoolcollegeinstituteSCHOOL OF MEDICINE
dc.contributor.schoolcollegeinstituteKUH (KOÇ UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL)
dc.date.accessioned2025-12-31T08:24:50Z
dc.date.available2025-12-31
dc.date.issued2025
dc.description.abstractBackground: High-quality RNA is essential for accurate molecular testing. This study evaluates the impact of cytological preparation techniques (May–Grünwald–Giemsa [MGG], Papanicolaou [PAP], Diff-Quik, and air-dried) on RNA quality in smear slides. Methods: A total of 182 smears were prepared from fresh surgical specimens of 26 patients using seven different techniques. RNA was isolated, reverse-transcribed, and analyzed using quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR). RNA quality was assessed using ΔCt (ΔCt = 45 – Ct, cycle threshold), where higher ΔCt indicates better RNA quality. Results: RNA quality, measured by ΔCt, showed clear differences (p <.001) in-between preparation methods, whereas RNA concentration did not differ significantly among smear types (p =.07). MGG-stained smears (both film- and coverslip-mounted) demonstrated the highest and most consistent ΔCt values. PAP-stained smears yielded the lowest ΔCt values, indicating the poorest RNA quality. Air-dried unstained smears showed highly variable ΔCt values and frequent amplification failures. Diff-Quik preparations had intermediate performance. Mounting method (film vs. coverslip) did not significantly affect RNA quality. Conclusion: Among cytology smear techniques, MGG provided the best RNA preservation, PAP the worst, and air-dried slides yielded inconsistent results. These findings highlight the critical role of smear preparation in preserving RNA for molecular testing, especially RNA-based next-generation sequencing. © 2025 American Cancer Society.
dc.description.fulltextYes
dc.description.harvestedfromManual
dc.description.indexedbyWOS
dc.description.indexedbyScopus
dc.description.indexedbyPubMed
dc.description.publisherscopeInternational
dc.description.readpublishN/A
dc.description.sponsoredbyTubitakEuN/A
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/cncy.70060
dc.identifier.eissn1934-6638
dc.identifier.embargoNo
dc.identifier.issn1934-662X
dc.identifier.issue12
dc.identifier.pubmed41217814
dc.identifier.quartileQ2
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-105021461016
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1002/cncy.70060
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14288/31827
dc.identifier.volume133
dc.identifier.wos001630036700001
dc.keywordsCytology
dc.keywordsNext-generation sequencing
dc.keywordsRNA quality
dc.keywordsSmear samples
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherJohn Wiley and Sons Inc
dc.relation.affiliationKoç University
dc.relation.collectionKoç University Institutional Repository
dc.relation.ispartofCancer Cytopathology
dc.relation.openaccessYes
dc.rightsCC BY-NC-ND (Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs)
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
dc.subjectMedicine
dc.subjectPathology
dc.titleThe impact of cytological preparation techniques on RNA quality: a comparative study on smear samples
dc.typeJournal Article
dspace.entity.typePublication
person.familyNameMeriçöz
person.familyNameÇaylak
person.familyNameSatılmış
person.familyNameDur Karasayar
person.familyNameKulaç
person.familyNameŞanioğlu
person.givenNameÇisel Aydın
person.givenNameGülsüm
person.givenNameZeynep Seçil Atakan
person.givenNameAyşe Hümeyra
person.givenNameİbrahim
person.givenNameŞevin Elif
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublicationd02929e1-2a70-44f0-ae17-7819f587bedd
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublication77d67233-829b-4c3a-a28f-bd97ab5c12c7
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublication91bbe15d-017f-446b-b102-ce755523d939
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublicationf91d21f0-6b13-46ce-939a-db68e4c8d2ab
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublication.latestForDiscoveryd02929e1-2a70-44f0-ae17-7819f587bedd
relation.isParentOrgUnitOfPublication17f2dc8e-6e54-4fa8-b5e0-d6415123a93e
relation.isParentOrgUnitOfPublication055775c9-9efe-43ec-814f-f6d771fa6dee
relation.isParentOrgUnitOfPublication.latestForDiscovery17f2dc8e-6e54-4fa8-b5e0-d6415123a93e

Files