4.6 Article

An improved method to quantitate mature plant microRNA in biological matrices using modified periodate treatment and inclusion of internal controls

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 12, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0175429

关键词

-

资金

  1. U.S. department of Agriculture appropriated fund [8040-51530-056-00D]
  2. Office of Dietary Supplements Interagency Reimbursable Agreement [8040-51530-056-20-I]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

MicroRNAs (miRNAs) ubiquitously exist in microorganisms, plants, and animals, and appear to modulate a wide range of critical biological processes. However, no definitive conclusion has been reached regarding the uptake of exogenous dietary small RNAs into mammalian circulation and organs and cross-kingdom regulation. One of the critical issues is our ability to assess and distinguish the origin of miRNAs. Although periodate oxidation has been used to differentiate mammalian and plant miRNAs, validation of treatment efficiency and the inclusion of proper controls for this method were lacking in previous studies. This study aimed to address: 1) the efficiency of periodate treatment in a plant or mammalian RNA matrix, and 2) the necessity of inclusion of internal controls. We designed and tested spike-in synthetic miRNAs in various plant and mammalian matrices and showed that they can be used as a control for the completion of periodate oxidation. We found that overloading the reaction system with high concentration of RNA resulted in incomplete oxidation of unmethylated miRNA. The abundant miRNAs from soy and corn were analyzed in the plasma, liver, and fecal samples of C57BL/6 mice fed a corn and soy-based chow diet using our improved methodology. The improvement resulted in the elimination of the false positive detection in the liver, and we did not detect plant miRNAs in the mouse plasma or liver samples. In summary, an improved methodology was developed for plant miRNA detection that appears to work well in different sample matrices.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据