4.4 Article

Persistence of RNAi-Mediated Knockdown in Drosophila Complicates Mosaic Analysis Yet Enables Highly Sensitive Lineage Tracing

期刊

GENETICS
卷 203, 期 1, 页码 109-+

出版社

GENETICS SOCIETY AMERICA
DOI: 10.1534/genetics.116.187062

关键词

RNAi; shRNA; Gal4/UAS; lineage tracing; compartment boundary

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01GM61672, R21EY23924]
  2. American Cancer Society Research [120366-RP-11-078-01-DDC]
  3. Cancer Research Coordinating Committee of the University of California
  4. National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

RNA interference (RNAi) has emerged as a powerful way of reducing gene function in Drosophila melanogaster tissues. By expressing synthetic short hairpin RNAs (shRNAs) using the Gal4/UAS system, knockdown is efficiently achieved in specific tissues or in clones of marked cells. Here we show that knockdown by shRNAs is so potent and persistent that even transient exposure of cells to shRNAs can reduce gene function in their descendants. When using the FLP-out Gal4 method, in some instances we observed unmarked shadow RNAi clones adjacent to Gal4-expressing clones, which may have resulted from brief Gal4 expression following recombination but prior to cell division. Similarly, Gal4 driver lines with dynamic expression patterns can generate shadow RNAi cells after their activity has ceased in those cells. Importantly, these effects can lead to erroneous conclusions regarding the cell autonomy of knockdown phenotypes. We have investigated the basis of this phenomenon and suggested experimental designs for eliminating ambiguities in interpretation. We have also exploited the persistence of shRNA-mediated knockdown to design a sensitive lineage-tracing method, i-TRACE, which is capable of detecting even low levels of past reporter expression. Using i-TRACE, we demonstrate transient infidelities in the expression of some cell-identity markers near compartment boundaries in the wing imaginal disc.

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

4.4
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