Isolation of cell populations is untangling complex biological interactions, but studies comparing methodologies lack in vivo complexity and draw limited conclusions about the types of transcripts identified by each technique. Furthermore, few studies compare FACS-based techniques to ribosomal affinity purification, and none do so genome-wide. We addressed this gap by systematically comparing nuclear-FACS, whole cell-FACS, and RiboTag affinity purification in the context of D1 or D2 dopamine receptor-expressing medium spiny neuron (MSN) subtypes of the nucleus accumbens (NAc), a key brain reward region. We find that nuclear-FACS-seq generates a substantially longer list of differentially expressed genes between these cell types, and a significantly larger number of neuropsychiatric GWAS hits than the other two methods. RiboTag-seq has much lower coverage of the transcriptome than the other methods, but very efficiently distinguishes D1-and D2-MSNs. We also demonstrate differences between D1-and D2-MSNs with respect to RNA localization, suggesting fundamental cell type differences in mechanisms of transcriptional regulation and subcellular transport of RNAs. Together, these findings guide the field in selecting the RNAseq method that best suits the scientific questions under investigation.ignore the important question about which RNA species are isolated by the latter methods that capture active translation [12][13][14] . Those studies that include such a comparison have relatively simple biological endpoints like method repeatability and contamination, and lack the comprehensiveness of a whole-genome analysis 10,15,16 .The absence of a methodical comparison of whole cell-FACS, nuclear-FACS, and RiboTag affinity purification is becoming increasingly problematic as an increasing number of studies using these techniques are published and their results taken at face value. These techniques capture different cellular processes while simultaneously defining the same cellular identity. Only a head-to-head comparison for the same cell types can demonstrate if they predominantly capture differences or similarities, and identify the nature of those biases. The present study was designed to address this deficiency in the field.Our two cell types of choice are both principal GABAergic MSNs of the NAc, a forebrain region implicated in reward and motivation. Both MSN subtypes respond to dopamine, but do so through the activity of different dopamine receptors 17,18 , display different physiology in response to reward-related stimuli 19-21 , and generate different behavioral outcomes [22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] . Whole cell-FACS 17 and TRAP 12 have been used to distinguish between D1-and D2-MSNs, but the two methods have not been compared directly and these prior studies focused on the entire striatal complex of which the NAc represents a small sub-region. Here, we use all three RNA isolation methods -whole cell-FACS, nuclear-FACS, and RiboTag -to provide a deeper characterization of these behaviorally relevant NAc cell typ...