Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log in with Windows Live Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Submit your paper to J Biol Methods today!
Photo

Different ways of doing RNAi


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 green

green

    member

  • Active Members
  • Pip
  • 24 posts
0
Neutral

Posted 27 January 2004 - 10:11 PM

Hi there,

It seems to me there are many strategies for making siRNA for RNA interference and also there are different ways of introducing siRNA into cells. What strategy is the most successful one?

Thank you for any hints.

GG

#2 dld2002

dld2002

    member

  • Active Members
  • Pip
  • 11 posts
0
Neutral

Posted 29 January 2004 - 11:37 AM

I don't know of the easiest but I just read of a system that is much cheaper than the usual. Its MessageMuter shRNAi from Epicentre. I plan on giving it a try soon.

#3 dpkp53

dpkp53

    member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
0
Neutral

Posted 07 February 2004 - 07:31 AM

I am going to try the pSUPER retrovirus vector , which can stably express shRNA transcript in target cell line. have anybody tried this?

#4 catjo

catjo

    member

  • Active Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
0
Neutral

Posted 16 November 2004 - 07:39 PM

Hiya,
I heard that retroviral vectors are no good for long-term stable expression - does anyone have any comments to this?
Cheers,
Cath

#5 yykang1980

yykang1980

    member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
0
Neutral

Posted 23 November 2004 - 05:12 PM

I use the Ambion pSIlence 3.0 vector but It doesn't work well,I don't know the reason

#6 green

green

    member

  • Active Members
  • Pip
  • 24 posts
0
Neutral

Posted 23 November 2004 - 06:14 PM

It seems that Ambion produces many fancy things but few of them really work.

#7 catjo

catjo

    member

  • Active Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
0
Neutral

Posted 23 November 2004 - 06:18 PM

I know someone using Ambion and they've had a lot of success - but it seems very variable - 3.0 will work for some shRNA in some cells types and 2.0 will work better in others...they bought both and try both vectors for every shRNA. (U6 is supposed to be the better promoter for RNAi)

cat

#8 Hooly

Hooly

    member

  • Active Members
  • Pip
  • 12 posts
0
Neutral

Posted 31 January 2005 - 04:28 PM

Depends what you want to study.

Any DNA-based method of siRNA expression - viral or plasmid-based - will kick off certain cellular stress responses when the siRNA is expressed, which seems to be a consequence of the processing required to turn an shRNA into an active siRNA. If you're studying stress-response pathways this is obviously bad news, plus engagement of stress-response pathways will have knock-on effects on the expression of other genes. If you don't care about this then you could give plasmid-based siRNA expression a try (transient or stable, your choice).

I don't like any strategy that involves chopping up RNA into 'siRNA' (Ambion will sell you kits that do this) because you have no real idea what it is that you're transfecting into your cells. Even with chemically synthesized siRNA we've found massive differences in the cellular response depending on who we buy them from and - importantly - the level of purity they're supplied at. Specifically, Qiagen offer a service that promises '~90% purity' of the siRNA - we tried it 'cos it was cheap but went back to the more expensive options pretty quick. Just wasn't worth the waste of time/effort/reagents/money. Bottom line: The cleaner the better.

I use chemically synthesized siRNA for two reasons. 1) Publications to date suggest strongly that they don't tend to kick off the stress-response pathways that shRNA do, and 2) you know exactly what you're introducing to your cells. Plus, for transfection/silencing controls defined chemically synthsized siRNA is probably the best to control for an active RNAi process (an siRNA that silences an non-essential gene product) as well as a non-active siRNA (scrambled control, or a sequence that has no target in your cells). It's a trade-off 'cos if you get lucky and design an effective siRNA you can use it for years before your stocks run out, but it's an expensive way to screen for effective siRNAs. Plus, this method means that you have to put your cells through ~4 hours of serum starvation as part of the transfection process, whether this is acceptable or really bad news for your experiments is up to you to decide.

#9 Andras

Andras

    member

  • Active Members
  • Pip
  • 28 posts
0
Neutral

Posted 09 August 2011 - 05:07 AM

Depends what you want to study.

Any DNA-based method of siRNA expression - viral or plasmid-based - will kick off certain cellular stress responses when the siRNA is expressed, which seems to be a consequence of the processing required to turn an shRNA into an active siRNA. If you're studying stress-response pathways this is obviously bad news, plus engagement of stress-response pathways will have knock-on effects on the expression of other genes. If you don't care about this then you could give plasmid-based siRNA expression a try (transient or stable, your choice).

I don't like any strategy that involves chopping up RNA into 'siRNA' (Ambion will sell you kits that do this) because you have no real idea what it is that you're transfecting into your cells. Even with chemically synthesized siRNA we've found massive differences in the cellular response depending on who we buy them from and - importantly - the level of purity they're supplied at. Specifically, Qiagen offer a service that promises '~90% purity' of the siRNA - we tried it 'cos it was cheap but went back to the more expensive options pretty quick. Just wasn't worth the waste of time/effort/reagents/money. Bottom line: The cleaner the better.

I use chemically synthesized siRNA for two reasons. 1) Publications to date suggest strongly that they don't tend to kick off the stress-response pathways that shRNA do, and 2) you know exactly what you're introducing to your cells. Plus, for transfection/silencing controls defined chemically synthsized siRNA is probably the best to control for an active RNAi process (an siRNA that silences an non-essential gene product) as well as a non-active siRNA (scrambled control, or a sequence that has no target in your cells). It's a trade-off 'cos if you get lucky and design an effective siRNA you can use it for years before your stocks run out, but it's an expensive way to screen for effective siRNAs. Plus, this method means that you have to put your cells through ~4 hours of serum starvation as part of the transfection process, whether this is acceptable or really bad news for your experiments is up to you to decide.


So who do you buy it from? We do it from qiagen, and my GAPDH knockdown works around 60-70%.

#10 bob1

bob1

    Thelymitra pulchella

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,597 posts
384
Excellent

Posted 09 August 2011 - 05:43 PM




So who do you buy it from? We do it from qiagen, and my GAPDH knockdown works around 60-70%.

You might want to check the timestamp on the post you are questioning... not many people stick around that long on these sorts of sites.

#11 Andras

Andras

    member

  • Active Members
  • Pip
  • 28 posts
0
Neutral

Posted 31 August 2011 - 11:56 AM

:) Rookie mistake...




Home - About - Terms of Service - Privacy - Contact Us

©1999-2013 Protocol Online, All rights reserved.