4.2 Article

Isolation of planarian viable cells using fluorescence-activated cell sorting for advancing single-cell transcriptome analysis

期刊

GENES TO CELLS
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/gtc.13068

关键词

FACS; planarian; pluripotent stem cells; single-cell preparation; single-cell RNA sequencing

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study developed a method to isolate viable single cells from adult planarian bodies using FACS, achieving high-quality RNA sequencing data and excluding low-quality cells through effective gating conditions, leading to high-quality results for all cell types.
Preparing viable single cells is critical for conducting single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) because the presence of ambient RNA from dead or damaged cells can interfere with data analysis. Here, we developed a method for isolating viable single cells from adult planarian bodies using fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS). This method was then applied to both adult pluripotent stem cells (aPSCs) and differentiating/differentiated cells. Initially, we employed a violet instead of ultraviolet (UV) laser to excite Hoechst 33342 to reduce cellular damage. After optimization of cell staining conditions and FACS compensation, we generated FACS profiles similar to those created using a previous method that employed a UV laser. Despite successfully obtaining high-quality RNA sequencing data for aPSCs, non-aPSCs produced low-quality RNA reads (i.e., <60% of cells possessing barcoding mRNAs). Subsequently, we identified an effective FACS gating condition that excluded low-quality cells and tissue debris without staining. This non-staining isolation strategy not only reduced post-dissociation time but also enabled high-quality scRNA-seq results for all cell types (i.e., >80%). Taken together, these findings imply that the non-staining FACS strategy may be beneficial for isolating viable cells not only from planarians but also from other organisms and tissues for scRNA-seq studies.

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

4.2
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