Cargando…

A Quantitative Comparison of Cell-Type-Specific Microarray Gene Expression Profiling Methods in the Mouse Brain

Expression profiling of restricted neural populations using microarrays can facilitate neuronal classification and provide insight into the molecular bases of cellular phenotypes. Due to the formidable heterogeneity of intermixed cell types that make up the brain, isolating cell types prior to micro...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Okaty, Benjamin W., Sugino, Ken, Nelson, Sacha B.
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3029380/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21304595
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0016493
_version_ 1782197229421854720
author Okaty, Benjamin W.
Sugino, Ken
Nelson, Sacha B.
author_facet Okaty, Benjamin W.
Sugino, Ken
Nelson, Sacha B.
author_sort Okaty, Benjamin W.
collection PubMed
description Expression profiling of restricted neural populations using microarrays can facilitate neuronal classification and provide insight into the molecular bases of cellular phenotypes. Due to the formidable heterogeneity of intermixed cell types that make up the brain, isolating cell types prior to microarray processing poses steep technical challenges that have been met in various ways. These methodological differences have the potential to distort cell-type-specific gene expression profiles insofar as they may insufficiently filter out contaminating mRNAs or induce aberrant cellular responses not normally present in vivo. Thus we have compared the repeatability, susceptibility to contamination from off-target cell-types, and evidence for stress-responsive gene expression of five different purification methods - Laser Capture Microdissection (LCM), Translating Ribosome Affinity Purification (TRAP), Immunopanning (PAN), Fluorescence Activated Cell Sorting (FACS), and manual sorting of fluorescently labeled cells (Manual). We found that all methods obtained comparably high levels of repeatability, however, data from LCM and TRAP showed significantly higher levels of contamination than the other methods. While PAN samples showed higher activation of apoptosis-related, stress-related and immediate early genes, samples from FACS and Manual studies, which also require dissociated cells, did not. Given that TRAP targets actively translated mRNAs, whereas other methods target all transcribed mRNAs, observed differences may also reflect translational regulation.
format Text
id pubmed-3029380
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-30293802011-02-08 A Quantitative Comparison of Cell-Type-Specific Microarray Gene Expression Profiling Methods in the Mouse Brain Okaty, Benjamin W. Sugino, Ken Nelson, Sacha B. PLoS One Research Article Expression profiling of restricted neural populations using microarrays can facilitate neuronal classification and provide insight into the molecular bases of cellular phenotypes. Due to the formidable heterogeneity of intermixed cell types that make up the brain, isolating cell types prior to microarray processing poses steep technical challenges that have been met in various ways. These methodological differences have the potential to distort cell-type-specific gene expression profiles insofar as they may insufficiently filter out contaminating mRNAs or induce aberrant cellular responses not normally present in vivo. Thus we have compared the repeatability, susceptibility to contamination from off-target cell-types, and evidence for stress-responsive gene expression of five different purification methods - Laser Capture Microdissection (LCM), Translating Ribosome Affinity Purification (TRAP), Immunopanning (PAN), Fluorescence Activated Cell Sorting (FACS), and manual sorting of fluorescently labeled cells (Manual). We found that all methods obtained comparably high levels of repeatability, however, data from LCM and TRAP showed significantly higher levels of contamination than the other methods. While PAN samples showed higher activation of apoptosis-related, stress-related and immediate early genes, samples from FACS and Manual studies, which also require dissociated cells, did not. Given that TRAP targets actively translated mRNAs, whereas other methods target all transcribed mRNAs, observed differences may also reflect translational regulation. Public Library of Science 2011-01-27 /pmc/articles/PMC3029380/ /pubmed/21304595 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0016493 Text en Okaty et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Okaty, Benjamin W.
Sugino, Ken
Nelson, Sacha B.
A Quantitative Comparison of Cell-Type-Specific Microarray Gene Expression Profiling Methods in the Mouse Brain
title A Quantitative Comparison of Cell-Type-Specific Microarray Gene Expression Profiling Methods in the Mouse Brain
title_full A Quantitative Comparison of Cell-Type-Specific Microarray Gene Expression Profiling Methods in the Mouse Brain
title_fullStr A Quantitative Comparison of Cell-Type-Specific Microarray Gene Expression Profiling Methods in the Mouse Brain
title_full_unstemmed A Quantitative Comparison of Cell-Type-Specific Microarray Gene Expression Profiling Methods in the Mouse Brain
title_short A Quantitative Comparison of Cell-Type-Specific Microarray Gene Expression Profiling Methods in the Mouse Brain
title_sort quantitative comparison of cell-type-specific microarray gene expression profiling methods in the mouse brain
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3029380/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21304595
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0016493
work_keys_str_mv AT okatybenjaminw aquantitativecomparisonofcelltypespecificmicroarraygeneexpressionprofilingmethodsinthemousebrain
AT suginoken aquantitativecomparisonofcelltypespecificmicroarraygeneexpressionprofilingmethodsinthemousebrain
AT nelsonsachab aquantitativecomparisonofcelltypespecificmicroarraygeneexpressionprofilingmethodsinthemousebrain
AT okatybenjaminw quantitativecomparisonofcelltypespecificmicroarraygeneexpressionprofilingmethodsinthemousebrain
AT suginoken quantitativecomparisonofcelltypespecificmicroarraygeneexpressionprofilingmethodsinthemousebrain
AT nelsonsachab quantitativecomparisonofcelltypespecificmicroarraygeneexpressionprofilingmethodsinthemousebrain