4.2 Article

Stable silencing of SNAP-25 in PC12 cells by RNA interference

期刊

BMC NEUROSCIENCE
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2202-7-9

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: SNAP-25 is a synaptic protein known to be involved in exocytosis of synaptic vesicles in neurons and of large dense-core vesicles in neuroendocrine cells. Its role in exocytosis has been studied in SNAP-25 knockout mice, in lysed synaptosomes lacking functional SNAP-25 and in cells after treatment with botulinum toxins A or E that specifically cleave SNAP-25. These studies have shown that SNAP-25 appears to be required for most but not all evoked secretion. In order to further study the role of SNAP-25 in catecholamine secretion from PC12 cells we have used the recently developed technique of RNA interference to generate PC12 cell lines with virtually undetectable levels of SNAP-25. RNA interference is the sequence-specific silencing or knockdown of gene expression triggered by the introduction of double-stranded RNA into a cell. RNA interference can be elicited in mammalian cells in a number of ways, one of which is by the expression of small hairpin RNAs from a transfected plasmid. Selection of stably transfected cell lines expressing a small hairpin RNA allows one-time characterization of the degree and specificity of gene silencing and affords a continuing source of well-characterized knockdown cells for experimentation. Results: A PC12 cell line stably transfected with a plasmid expressing an shRNA targeting SNAP-25 has been established. This SNAP-25 knockdown cell line has barely detectable levels of SNAP-25, but normal levels of other synaptic proteins. Catecholamine secretion elicited by depolarization of the SNAP-25 knockdown cells was reduced to 37% of control. Conclusion: Knockdown of SNAP-25 in PC12 cells reduces but does not eliminate evoked secretion of catecholamines. Transient expression of human SNAP-25 in the knockdown cells rescues the deficit in catecholamine secretion.

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