4.7 Article

Mouse TU tagging: a chemical/genetic intersectional method for purifying cell type-specific nascent RNA

期刊

GENES & DEVELOPMENT
卷 27, 期 1, 页码 98-115

出版社

COLD SPRING HARBOR LAB PRESS, PUBLICATIONS DEPT
DOI: 10.1101/gad.205278.112

关键词

brain; endothelial cells; heart; microglia; nascent RNA; transcriptional profiling

资金

  1. NIH/NHLBI [5R00HL087598]
  2. March of Dimes Basil O'Connor Award
  3. Department of Defense Peer-Reviewed Cancer Research Program [CA100469]
  4. Pew Charitable Trust
  5. NRSA predoctoral fellowship
  6. California Institute for Regenerative Medicine [RT1-01052-1]
  7. Empire State Stem Cell Fund from New York State Department of Health [C024352]
  8. Howard Hughes Medical Institute
  9. CDMRP [CA100469, 545619] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Transcriptional profiling is a powerful approach for understanding development and disease. Current cell type-specific RNA purification methods have limitations, including cell dissociation trauma or inability to identify all RNA species. Here, we describe mouse thiouracil (TU) tagging, a genetic and chemical intersectional method for covalent labeling and purification of cell type-specific RNA in vivo. Cre-induced expression of uracil phosphoribosyltransferase (UPRT) provides spatial specificity; injection of 4-thiouracil (4TU) provides temporal specificity. Only UPRT+ cells exposed to 4TU produce thio-RNA, which is then purified for RNA sequencing (RNA-seq). This method can purify transcripts from spatially complex and rare (<5%) cells, such as Tie2:Cre(+) brain endothelia/microglia (76% validated by expression pattern), or temporally dynamic transcripts, such as those acutely induced by lipopolysaccharide (LPS) injection. Moreover, generating chimeric mice via UPRT + bone marrow transplants identifies immune versus niche spleen RNA. TU tagging provides a novel method for identifying actively transcribed genes in specific cells at specific times within intact mice.

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

4.7
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