4.7 Article

Efficient Enrichment of Bacterial mRNA from Host-Bacteria Total RNA Samples

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 6, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/srep34850

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health through the NIH Director's New Innovator Award Program [DP2-OD007372]
  2. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services [R01AI47885, HHSN272200900009C, U19AI110820]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Despite numerous advances in genomics and bioinformatics, technological hurdles remain to examine host-microbe transcriptomics. Sometimes the transcriptome of either or both can be ascertained merely by generating more sequencing reads. However, many cases exist where bacterial mRNA needs to be enriched further to enable cost-effective sequencing of the pathogen or endosymbiont. While a suitable method is commercially available for mammalian samples of this type, development of such methods has languished for invertebrate samples. Furthermore, a common method across multiple taxa would facilitate comparisons between bacteria in invertebrate vectors and their vertebrate hosts. Here, a method is described to concurrently remove polyadenylated transcripts, prokaryotic rRNA, and eukaryotic rRNA, including those with low amounts of starting material (e.g. 100 ng). In a Wolbachia-Drosophila system, this bacterial mRNA enrichment yielded a 3-fold increase in Wolbachia mRNA abundance and a concomitant 3.3-fold increase in the percentage of transcripts detected. More specifically, 70% of the genome could be recovered by transcriptome sequencing compared to 21% in the total RNA. Sequencing of similar bacterial mRNA-enriched samples generated from Ehrlichia-infected canine cells covers 93% of the Ehrlichia genome, suggesting ubiquitous transcription across the entire Ehrlichia chaffeensis genome. This technique can potentially be used to enrich bacterial mRNA in many studies of host-microbe interactions.

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

4.7
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