Müller Patrick, Boutros Michael, Zeidler Martin P
Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology, Harvard University, 16 Divinity Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA.
Semin Cell Dev Biol. 2008 Aug;19(4):360-9. doi: 10.1016/j.semcdb.2008.06.001. Epub 2008 Jun 8.
While many core JAK/STAT pathway components have been discovered in Drosophila via classical genetic approaches, the identification of pathway regulators has been more challenging. Recently two cell-based RNAi screens for JAK/STAT pathway regulators have been undertaken using libraries of double-stranded RNAs targeting a large proportion of the predicted Drosophila transcriptome. While both screens identified multiple regulators, only relatively few loci are common to both data sets. Here we compare the two screens and discuss these differences. Although many factors are likely to be contributory, differences in the assay design are of key importance. Low levels of stimulation favouring the identification of negative pathway regulators and high levels of stimulation favouring the identification of positively acting factors. Ultimately, the results from both screens are likely to be largely complementary and have identified a range of novel candidate regulators of JAK/STAT pathway activity as a starting point for new research directions in the future.
虽然许多核心的JAK/STAT信号通路成分已通过经典遗传学方法在果蝇中被发现,但通路调节因子的鉴定更具挑战性。最近,针对JAK/STAT信号通路调节因子进行了两项基于细胞的RNA干扰筛选,使用了针对大部分预测的果蝇转录组的双链RNA文库。虽然两项筛选都鉴定出了多个调节因子,但两个数据集共有的位点相对较少。在这里,我们比较了这两项筛选并讨论了这些差异。尽管许多因素可能都有作用,但检测设计的差异至关重要。低水平刺激有利于鉴定负向通路调节因子,而高水平刺激有利于鉴定正向作用因子。最终,两项筛选的结果可能在很大程度上是互补的,并已鉴定出一系列JAK/STAT信号通路活性的新型候选调节因子,作为未来新研究方向的起点。