Lee Byron, Flynn Ryan A, Kadina Anastasia, Guo Jimmy K, Kool Eric T, Chang Howard Y
Center for Personal Dynamic Regulomes, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305, USA.
Department of Chemistry, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305, USA.
RNA. 2017 Feb;23(2):169-174. doi: 10.1261/rna.058784.116. Epub 2016 Nov 22.
Recent advances in SHAPE technology have converted the classic primer extension method to next-generation sequencing platforms, allowing transcriptome-level analysis of RNA secondary structure. In particular, icSHAPE and SHAPE-MaP, using NAI-N and 1M7 reagents, respectively, are methods that claim to measure in vivo structure with high-throughput sequencing. However, these compounds have not been compared on an unbiased, raw-signal level. Here, we directly compare several in vivo SHAPE acylation reagents using the simple primer extension assay. We conclude that while multiple SHAPE technologies are effective at measuring purified RNAs in vitro, acylimidazole reagents NAI and NAI-N give markedly greater signals with lower background than 1M7 for in vivo measurement of the RNA structurome.
SHAPE技术的最新进展已将经典的引物延伸方法转变为新一代测序平台,从而实现对RNA二级结构的转录组水平分析。特别是,icSHAPE和SHAPE-MaP分别使用NAI-N和1M7试剂,这两种方法都声称可通过高通量测序来测量体内结构。然而,这些化合物尚未在无偏倚的原始信号水平上进行比较。在此,我们使用简单的引物延伸测定法直接比较了几种体内SHAPE酰化试剂。我们得出的结论是,虽然多种SHAPE技术在体外测量纯化RNA方面有效,但对于RNA结构组的体内测量,酰亚胺唑试剂NAI和NAI-N比1M7具有明显更强的信号和更低的背景。