2020
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-0716-0743-5_6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Revised Adaptation of the Smart-Seq2 Protocol for Single-Nematode RNA-Seq

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
13
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
0
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In addition, the library construction method uses oligo-dT anchored primers for RNA capture, so it will not cause base imbalance in sequencing results due to GC content deviation. Previous studies have shown that ultra-low input RNA-seq analysis based on Smart-seq2 has been applied in animal liver, lymphoid cell, fungi, and single-nematode [ 35 38 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, the library construction method uses oligo-dT anchored primers for RNA capture, so it will not cause base imbalance in sequencing results due to GC content deviation. Previous studies have shown that ultra-low input RNA-seq analysis based on Smart-seq2 has been applied in animal liver, lymphoid cell, fungi, and single-nematode [ 35 38 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To avoid potential amplification biases by different PCR cycles, we used 12 PCR cycles for cDNA amplification and eight PCR cycles for DNA (library) amplification in all samples. Together, this protocol contains four major modifications relative to the work of Macchietto et al (2017) and Chang et al (2021) : (1) We lysed worms through freeze-thawing; (2) we removed genomic DNA and performed this reaction in the same PCR tube as the cDNA synthesis reaction; (3) for the library preparation, we reduced the input of cDNA (to ∼1 ng); and (4) we only amplified the final library through eight cycles of PCR reaction. Raw reads of the 114 SWT samples were submitted to the European Nucleotide Archive (see Data access).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, such methods are restricted to organisms that can be massively cultured and that stay synchronous throughout development. One alternative methodology is single worm transcriptomics (SWT), a method that has originally been introduced in two entomopathogenic nematodes of the genus Steinernema ( Macchietto et al 2017 ) and recently has been revised ( Chang et al 2021 ). Although such a method could in theory be adopted in many organisms, to the best of our knowledge, it has not yet been widely applied.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the single-worm RNA-seq method developed by Dillman and colleagues [ 14 , 15 ], a worm was cut, chemically lysed in a lysis buffer, and then subjected to reverse transcription using SMART-Seq2 reagents. Because the SMART reagents work best with isolated RNA as input [ 11 ] and the harsh lysis buffer used to chemically penetrate the worm’s thick cuticle could potentially degrade RNA molecules, we wanted to mechanically break worms, isolate RNA, and then use that RNA as input in our single-worm RNA-seq protocol.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Compared to standard RNA-seq that uses RNA from hundreds to thousands of worms as input, single-worm RNA-seq faces two major technical challenges: low input RNA from a single worm and low accessibility of that RNA due to the nematode’s thick surrounding cuticle. While the limited amount of input RNA can be overcome by adapting library preparation methods from single-cell RNA-seq, the harsh chemical lysis condition commonly used to penetrate the worm cuticle and access the RNA could potentially cause RNA degradation [ 12 15 ]. In the current study, we tested three different conditions for the mechanical lysis of worms and found an optimal condition to maintain RNA integrity.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%