↓ Skip to main content

Complexities due to single-stranded RNA during antibody detection of genomic rna:dna hybrids

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Complexities due to single-stranded RNA during antibody detection of genomic rna:dna hybrids
Published in
BMC Research Notes, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13104-015-1092-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zheng Z Zhang, Nicholas R Pannunzio, Chih-Lin Hsieh, Kefei Yu, Michael R Lieber

Abstract

Long genomic R-loops in eukaryotes were first described at the immunoglobulin heavy chain locus switch regions using bisulfite sequencing and functional studies. A mouse monoclonal antibody called S9.6 has been used for immunoprecipitation (IP) to identify R-loops, based on the assumption that it is specific for RNA:DNA over other nucleic acid duplexes. However, recent work has demonstrated that a variable domain of S9.6 binds AU-rich RNA:RNA duplexes with a KD that is only 5.6-fold weaker than for RNA:DNA duplexes. Most IP protocols do not pre-clear the genomic nucleic acid with RNase A to remove free RNA. Fold back of ssRNA can readily generate RNA:RNA duplexes that may bind the S9.6 antibody, and adventitious binding of RNA may also create short RNA:DNA regions. Here we investigate whether RNase A is needed to obtain reliable IP with S9.6. As our test locus, we chose the most well-documented site for kilobase-long mammalian genomic R-loops, the immunoglobulin heavy chain locus (IgH) class switch regions. The R-loops at this locus can be induced by using cytokines to stimulate transcription from germline transcript promoters. We tested IP using S9.6 with and without various RNase treatments. The RNase treatments included RNase H to destroy the RNA in an RNA:DNA duplex and RNase A to destroy single-stranded (ss) RNA to prevent it from binding S9.6 directly (as duplex RNA) and to prevent the ssRNA from annealing to the genome, resulting in adventitious RNA:DNA hybrids. We find that optimal detection of RNA:DNA duplexes requires removal of ssRNA using RNase A. Without RNase A treatment, known regions of R-loop formation containing RNA:DNA duplexes can not be reliably detected. With RNase A treatment, a signal can be detected over background, but only within a limited 2 or 3-fold range, even with a stable kilobase-long genomic R-loop. Any use of the S9.6 antibody must be preceded by RNase A treatment to remove free ssRNA that may compete for the S9.6 binding by forming RNA:RNA regions or short, transient RNA:DNA duplexes. Caution should be used when interpreting S9.6 data, and confirmation by independent structural and functional methods is essential.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Switzerland 1 1%
Unknown 64 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 28%
Researcher 15 22%
Student > Bachelor 8 12%
Student > Master 5 7%
Professor 4 6%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 8 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 29 43%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 21 31%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 7%
Computer Science 2 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 1%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 6 9%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 January 2016.
All research outputs
#20,300,248
of 22,837,982 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#3,562
of 4,266 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#224,076
of 264,876 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#60
of 74 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,837,982 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,266 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,876 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 74 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.