4.5 Article

Long-term effect of systemic RNA interference on circadian clock genes in hemimetabolous insects

Journal

JOURNAL OF INSECT PHYSIOLOGY
Volume 59, Issue 4, Pages 494-499

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jinsphys.2013.02.009

Keywords

RNA interference; Cricket; Firebrat; Clock gene; Gene knock-down; Double-stranded RNA

Funding

  1. [KAKENHI 23870021]
  2. [KAKENHI 23657056]
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [25840121, 23370033] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

RNA interference (RNAi) strategy, which enables gene-specific knock-down of transcripts, has been spread across a wide area of insect studies for investigating gene function without regard to model and non-model insects. This technique is of particular benefit to promote molecular studies on non-model insects. However, the optimal conditions for RNAi are still not well understood because of its variable efficiency depending on the species, target genes, and experimental conditions. To apply RNAi technique to long-running experiments such as chronobiological studies, the effects of RNAi have to persist throughout the experiment. In this study, we attempted to determine the optimal concentration of double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) for systemic RNAi and its effective period in two different insect species, the cricket Gryllus bimaculatus and the firebrat Thermobia domestica. In both species, higher concentrations of dsRNA principally yielded a more efficient knock-down of mRNA levels of tested clock genes, although the effect depended on the gene and the species. Surprisingly, the effect of the RNAi reached its maximum effect 1-2 weeks and 1 month after the injection of dsRNA in the crickets and the firebrats, respectively, suggesting a slow but long-term effect of RNAi. Our study provides fundamental information for utilizing RNAi technique in any long-running experiment. (c) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available