4.4 Article

The Transgenic RNAi Project at Harvard Medical School: Resources and Validation

期刊

GENETICS
卷 201, 期 3, 页码 843-U68

出版社

GENETICS SOCIETY AMERICA
DOI: 10.1534/genetics.115.180208

关键词

RNAi; Drosophila; screens; phenotypes; functional genomics

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [R01GM084947, R01GM067761, R24RR032668, R01GM060574, RO1GM094452, RO1GM043301, R37GM062534]
  2. National Institute of Genetics
  3. National Key Technology Research and Development Program of the Ministry of Science and Technology of the People's Republic of China [2015BAI09B03]
  4. National Basic Research Program (973 Program) [2013CB35102]
  5. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31371496]
  6. HHMI
  7. Office of The Director, National Institutes of Health [P40OD018537]
  8. [R01HD14900-09]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To facilitate large-scale functional studies in Drosophila, the Drosophila Transgenic RNAi Project (TRiP) at Harvard Medical School (HMS) was established along with several goals: developing efficient vectors for RNAi that work in all tissues, generating a genome-scale collection of RNAi stocks with input from the community, distributing the lines as they are generated through existing stock centers, validating as many lines as possible using RT-qPCR and phenotypic analyses, and developing tools and web resources for identifying RNAi lines and retrieving existing information on their quality. With these goals in mind, here we describe in detail the various tools we developed and the status of the collection, which is currently composed of 11,491 lines and covering 71% of Drosophila genes. Data on the characterization of the lines either by RT-qPCR or phenotype is available on a dedicated website, the RNAi Stock Validation and Phenotypes Project (RSVP, http://www.flyrnai.org/RSVP.html), and stocks are available from three stock centers, the Bloomington Drosophila Stock Center (United States), National Institute of Genetics (Japan), and TsingHua Fly Center (China).

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