shRNA - Good even if I don't need extra benefits? - (Apr/01/2008 )
I am trying to knockdown expression of a transcription factor in HEK cells. I am currently debating siRNA vs. shRNA. It seems to me that shRNA is the most cost-effective way to go since the expression construct is a "renewable" resource via transformation, etc.
My issue is that I don't need the retroviral capability, I don't need the mechanism that is better for "hard-to-transfect" cells, and I may or may not need the puromycin selection agent. It seems like I must be missing something here -- why doesn't everyone just go with shRNA?
Thanks for any help you can give -- I really appreciate. it.
IMO I think that people go with siRNA first to see if their siRNA sequence works and you get good knockdown. If you get good knowndown, then you can make the shRNA plasmid. But if you don't see good knockdown you end up making a new siRNA. If you went to shRNA first and then found that there is no knowndown, then it is a waste of time and money.