Cargando…
INTACT vs. FANS for Cell-Type-Specific Nuclei Sorting: A Comprehensive Qualitative and Quantitative Comparison
Increasing numbers of studies seek to characterize the different cellular sub-populations present in mammalian tissues. The techniques “Isolation of Nuclei Tagged in Specific Cell Types” (INTACT) or “Fluorescence-Activated Nuclei Sorting” (FANS) are frequently used for isolating nuclei of specific c...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8159132/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34069481 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms22105335 |
_version_ | 1783700017284907008 |
---|---|
author | Chongtham, Monika Chanu Butto, Tamer Mungikar, Kanak Gerber, Susanne Winter, Jennifer |
author_facet | Chongtham, Monika Chanu Butto, Tamer Mungikar, Kanak Gerber, Susanne Winter, Jennifer |
author_sort | Chongtham, Monika Chanu |
collection | PubMed |
description | Increasing numbers of studies seek to characterize the different cellular sub-populations present in mammalian tissues. The techniques “Isolation of Nuclei Tagged in Specific Cell Types” (INTACT) or “Fluorescence-Activated Nuclei Sorting” (FANS) are frequently used for isolating nuclei of specific cellular subtypes. These nuclei are then used for molecular characterization of the cellular sub-populations. Despite the increasing popularity of both techniques, little is known about their isolation efficiency, advantages, and disadvantages or downstream molecular effects. In our study, we compared the physical and molecular attributes of sfGFP+ nuclei isolated by the two methods—INTACT and FANS—from the neocortices of Arc-CreERT2 × CAG-Sun1/sfGFP animals. We identified differences in efficiency of sfGFP+ nuclei isolation, nuclear size as well as transcriptional (RNA-seq) and chromatin accessibility (ATAC-seq) states. Therefore, our study presents a comprehensive comparison between the two widely used nuclei sorting techniques, identifying the advantages and disadvantages for both INTACT and FANS. Our conclusions are summarized in a table to guide researchers in selecting the most suitable methodology for their individual experimental design. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8159132 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-81591322021-05-28 INTACT vs. FANS for Cell-Type-Specific Nuclei Sorting: A Comprehensive Qualitative and Quantitative Comparison Chongtham, Monika Chanu Butto, Tamer Mungikar, Kanak Gerber, Susanne Winter, Jennifer Int J Mol Sci Article Increasing numbers of studies seek to characterize the different cellular sub-populations present in mammalian tissues. The techniques “Isolation of Nuclei Tagged in Specific Cell Types” (INTACT) or “Fluorescence-Activated Nuclei Sorting” (FANS) are frequently used for isolating nuclei of specific cellular subtypes. These nuclei are then used for molecular characterization of the cellular sub-populations. Despite the increasing popularity of both techniques, little is known about their isolation efficiency, advantages, and disadvantages or downstream molecular effects. In our study, we compared the physical and molecular attributes of sfGFP+ nuclei isolated by the two methods—INTACT and FANS—from the neocortices of Arc-CreERT2 × CAG-Sun1/sfGFP animals. We identified differences in efficiency of sfGFP+ nuclei isolation, nuclear size as well as transcriptional (RNA-seq) and chromatin accessibility (ATAC-seq) states. Therefore, our study presents a comprehensive comparison between the two widely used nuclei sorting techniques, identifying the advantages and disadvantages for both INTACT and FANS. Our conclusions are summarized in a table to guide researchers in selecting the most suitable methodology for their individual experimental design. MDPI 2021-05-19 /pmc/articles/PMC8159132/ /pubmed/34069481 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms22105335 Text en © 2021 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Chongtham, Monika Chanu Butto, Tamer Mungikar, Kanak Gerber, Susanne Winter, Jennifer INTACT vs. FANS for Cell-Type-Specific Nuclei Sorting: A Comprehensive Qualitative and Quantitative Comparison |
title | INTACT vs. FANS for Cell-Type-Specific Nuclei Sorting: A Comprehensive Qualitative and Quantitative Comparison |
title_full | INTACT vs. FANS for Cell-Type-Specific Nuclei Sorting: A Comprehensive Qualitative and Quantitative Comparison |
title_fullStr | INTACT vs. FANS for Cell-Type-Specific Nuclei Sorting: A Comprehensive Qualitative and Quantitative Comparison |
title_full_unstemmed | INTACT vs. FANS for Cell-Type-Specific Nuclei Sorting: A Comprehensive Qualitative and Quantitative Comparison |
title_short | INTACT vs. FANS for Cell-Type-Specific Nuclei Sorting: A Comprehensive Qualitative and Quantitative Comparison |
title_sort | intact vs. fans for cell-type-specific nuclei sorting: a comprehensive qualitative and quantitative comparison |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8159132/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34069481 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms22105335 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT chongthammonikachanu intactvsfansforcelltypespecificnucleisortingacomprehensivequalitativeandquantitativecomparison AT buttotamer intactvsfansforcelltypespecificnucleisortingacomprehensivequalitativeandquantitativecomparison AT mungikarkanak intactvsfansforcelltypespecificnucleisortingacomprehensivequalitativeandquantitativecomparison AT gerbersusanne intactvsfansforcelltypespecificnucleisortingacomprehensivequalitativeandquantitativecomparison AT winterjennifer intactvsfansforcelltypespecificnucleisortingacomprehensivequalitativeandquantitativecomparison |