4.8 Article

STRIDE-a fluorescence method for direct, specific in situ detection of individual single- or double-strand DNA breaks in fixed cells

期刊

NUCLEIC ACIDS RESEARCH
卷 48, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkz1118

关键词

-

资金

  1. Polish National Science Center [2015/16/T/NZ 3/00157, 2017/27/B/NZ3/01065]
  2. U.S. National Institutes of Health (N.I.H. 4D Nucleome Initiative) [U01DA-040588]
  3. Faculty of Biochemistry, Biophysics and Biotechnology, Jagiellonian University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We here describe a technique termed STRIDE (SensiTive Recognition of Individual DNA Ends), which enables highly sensitive, specific, direct in situ detection of single- or double-strand DNA breaks (sSTRIDE or dSTRIDE), in nuclei of single cells, using fluorescence microscopy. The sensitivity of STRIDE was tested using a specially developed CRISPR/Cas9 DNA damage induction system, capable of inducing small clusters or individual single- or double-strand breaks. STRIDE exhibits significantly higher sensitivity and specificity of detection of DNA breaks than the commonly used terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase dUTP nick-end labeling assay or methods based on monitoring of recruitment of repair proteins or histone modifications at the damage site (e.g. gamma H2AX). Even individual genome site-specific DNA double-strand cuts induced by CRISPR/Cas9, as well as individual single-strand DNA scissions induced by the nickase version of Cas9, can be detected by STRIDE and precisely localized within the cell nucleus. We further show that STRIDE can detect low-level spontaneous DNA damage, including age-related DNA lesions, DNA breaks induced by several agents (bleomycin, doxorubicin, topotecan, hydrogen peroxide, UV, photosensitized reactions) and fragmentation of DNA in human spermatozoa. The STRIDE methods are potentially useful in studies of mechanisms of DNA damage induction and repair in cell lines and primary cultures, including cells with impaired repair mechanisms.

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

4.8
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