|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
| Home Help Feedback Subscriptions Archive Search Table of Contents | ||||
First published online 9 April 2008
doi: 10.1242/dev.001115
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Review |
1 Institute of Neuroscience, 1254 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-1254,
USA.
2 Wellcome Trust/CR-UK Gurdon Institute and Department of Zoology, University of
Cambridge, Tennis Court Road, Cambridge CB2 1QN, UK.
* Author for correspondence (e-mail: jim{at}gurdon.cam.ac.uk)
SUMMARY
One of the most significant problems facing developmental biologists who do not work on an organism with well-developed genetics - and even for some who do - is how to inhibit the action of a gene of interest during development so as to learn about its normal biological function. A widely adopted approach is to use antisense technologies, and especially morpholino antisense oligonucleotides. In this article, we review the use of such reagents and present examples of how they have provided insights into developmental mechanisms. We also discuss how the use of morpholinos can lead to misleading results, including off-target effects, and we suggest controls that will allow researchers to interpret morpholino experiments correctly.
Introduction
To understand the molecular basis of early development, developmental
biologists have long wished for techniques that allow the experimenter
specifically to inhibit the functions of particular genes in particular cells
at particular developmental stages. That goal has not yet been achieved,
although researchers working on mouse embryos are closest to this aim, with
their use of targeted mutations and Cre recombinase. Even here, however, there
are some difficulties: attempts to interfere with the function of one gene may
lead to unwanted side-effects on another
(Carvajal et al., 2001
), and
users of Cre recombinase need to be aware of the potential toxicity of Cre
expression (Schmidt-Supprian and Rajewsky,
2007).
But what of other species? There is no doubt that research on other vertebrates and on invertebrates has led to fundamental insights into early development, and that the use of such species can have significant practical advantages over the use of mammalian embryos, in terms of accessibility, cost and time, in addition to their intrinsic interest. In none of these species is it yet possible routinely to carry out specific gene targeting, and although conventional genetic screens are of inestimable value in understanding a particular process, they cannot be guaranteed to target the desired gene nor can they be guaranteed to produce a null mutation. Thus, researchers need a way to inhibit the functions of genes. Dominant-negative approaches have their place, but the best hope, certainly in terms of specificity, lies in antisense RNA technologies. Antisense RNA strategies can be applied not only to `genetic' invertebrate and vertebrate organisms, but also to `non-genetic' organisms and to tissue culture cells, and they may be of increasing use in searches for new drugs.
Both RNA interference (RNAi) and morpholino (MO) techniques have had a huge
influence on our understanding of gene function in the early embryo, and will
continue to do so. But are these techniques too good to be true? All antisense
techniques, with the possible exception of those employed by the animal
itself, suffer from some off-target effects. These effects can make it
difficult to discern how much of an antisense-mediated phenotype results from
the knockdown of the gene of interest, and how much results from the knockdown
of other genes. Clarifying this issue requires the establishment of stringent
controls that are applied across the board. Here, we discuss appropriate
controls for antisense technologies for the study of animal development,
focussing on controls for MO experiments, and we make recommendations about
the use of these controls in zebrafish and frog embryos. These issues have
been discussed elsewhere for RNAi experiments in the fruit fly Drosophila
melanogaster (Dasgupta et al.,
2007; Ma et al.,
2006) and in mammalian cells
(Svoboda, 2007). Some of the
controls we recommend are also likely to be important for establishing the use
of MOs for other species and for therapeutic applications.
Antisense techniques
The idea of introducing antisense RNA into a cell to inhibit the
translation, processing or stability of its endogenous mRNA complement was
developed over 20 years ago (Izant and
Weintraub, 1984; Izant and
Weintraub, 1985). The technique proved successful in inhibiting
the translation of exogenous RNA injected into oocytes of the frog Xenopus
laevis (Harland and Weintraub,
1985; Melton,
1985), as well as in inhibiting the translation of endogenous mRNA
(Izant and Weintraub, 1985).
And the use of antisense oligonucleotides in the hands of Heasman and Wylie
(Wylie and Heasman, 1997) has
allowed researchers to study the functions of maternally inherited transcripts
in frog oocytes, including those encoded by genes such as Vg1 and
VegT (Birsoy et al.,
2006; Zhang et al.,
1998). In these cases, the antisense reagent interfered with gene
function by hybridising to endogenous RNAs and by mediating their degradation
via RNaseH (Summerton, 1999).
Further studies in the nematode worm Caenorhabditis elegans revealed,
surprisingly, that double-stranded (ds) RNAs also interfere with endogenous
gene function (Fire et al.,
1998). This work led to the discovery in animals of families of
small, non-coding RNAs that regulate many, if not all, aspects of gene
expression (Farazi et al.,
2008; Mendes Soares and
Valcarcel, 2006), and to a Nobel prize for the discoverers of
dsRNA-mediated interference (Couzin,
2006).
At least in the frog, however, with just a few exceptions
(Li and Rohrer, 2006;
Lombardo and Slack, 1997;
Nakano et al., 2000;
Steinbeisser et al., 1995),
the use of conventional antisense RNA, antisense oligonucleotides, or RNAi has
not met with success in understanding the roles of zygotically expressed genes
(Heasman, 2002). Similarly, in
the zebrafish Danio rerio, antisense RNA has been shown to have
widespread effects that are sequence independent, preventing the practical
application of this approach to the study of specific gene functions during
development (Oates et al.,
2000). It remains possible that new approaches will make
techniques such as RNAi feasible in these species, but for now they do not
seem to be practicable.
These problems in testing gene function delayed the field until early this
century, when it was shown, with some fanfare [Editorial, Nature
Genetics 26(2), 129-130], that MOs could be targeted to knockdown
specific gene expression both in frog
(Heasman et al., 2000) and in
zebrafish (Ekker, 2000;
Nasevicius and Ekker, 2000).
The power of MOs to test gene function was quickly recognised and applied to
other organisms, including another species of frog, X. tropicalis
(Nutt et al., 2001), the chick
Gallus gallus (Kos et al.,
2001), an ascidian, Ciona savignyi
(Satou et al., 2001), oocytes
of the mouse Mus musculus
(Coonrod et al., 2001), and
the sea urchin, Strongylocentrotus purpuratus
(Coffman et al., 2004). The
importance of MO technology in advancing the field was heralded by an entire
issue of the journal Genesis [30(3), July 2001], devoted to gene
targeting studies employing MOs in a variety of organisms.
|
;
Heasman, 2002;
Heasman et al., 2000). In
particular, MOs are resistant to nucleases and are therefore remarkably stable
(see below), and the fact that they do not carry a negatively charged backbone
means that they are less likely to interact non-specifically with other
components of the cell and may be less toxic as a result.
MOs do not act through an RNaseH mechanism but instead can be designed to
inhibit translation (Summerton,
1999) (Fig. 2A),
or, as more recent experiments have shown, to prevent the proper splicing of
RNA (Draper et al., 2001)
(Fig. 2B-E). As we discuss in
this article, MOs are now used in a wide variety of applications. For example,
a recent study shows that it is possible in principle to use MOs to do the
same types of genome-wide screens in vertebrate embryos, such as X.
tropicalis (Rana et al.,
2006), that have been done successfully using RNAi in C.
elegans embryos (Gonczy et al.,
2000; Kamath et al.,
2003; Sonnichsen et al.,
2005) and in tissue culture cells in D. melanogaster
(Agaisse et al., 2005;
Boutros et al., 2004;
Friedman and Perrimon, 2006).
This study (Rana et al., 2006)
also showed that fluorescent MOs can be used to monitor the distribution of
MOs within the embryo. More recently, photoactivatable MOs have been used to
provide spatiotemporal control over gene knockdown, raising the possibility of
targeting gene perturbations to specific regions of the embryo, perhaps even
in individual cells, at particularly relevant stages of development
(Shestopalov et al., 2007)
(Fig. 2F). Finally, MOs can
also be used to block the functions of microRNAs, one of the non-coding RNA
families in animals identified as a result of the original dsRNA study. This
can be achieved by targeting either the mature microRNA or the microRNA
precursor (Kloosterman et al.,
2007).
Use of morpholinos in frogs, zebrafish and other organisms
The first descriptions of the use of MOs in developmental biology research
were made eight years ago (Ekker,
2000; Heasman et al.,
2000; Nasevicius and Ekker,
2000), and since then the research community has adopted them with
enthusiasm. The ease of use of MOs, especially in zebrafish and frogs, and the
exciting results that have been obtained, have meant that any paper describing
a new gene cannot afford to neglect experiments using an MO to knockdown the
gene and thus to learn about its normal function. However, an unfortunate side
effect of the enthusiasm for MOs is that because proper standards for controls
have not been adopted, there are undoubtedly publications in which at least
some of the supposedly specific results are due to off-target effects, rather
than to the specific knockdown of only the gene(s) of interest. One purpose of
this review is to discuss this issue and to suggest a series of standard
controls; our suggestions complement and supplement those put forward by Corey
and Abrams (Corey and Abrams,
2001).
Translation-blocking MOs
Many investigators use MOs directed against the initiation codon of the
target mRNA. This approach is particularly attractive in those (now rather
few) model species whose genome sequence is unknown, because one does not need
to know the intron-exon structure of the target gene to inhibit its function.
The design of MOs intended to inhibit translation has been extensively
studied, and the rules for success prove to be relatively simple (see
Box 1).
There are so many examples of the use of translation-blocking MOs that it is difficult to select just a few to describe. Here, we mention two examples, one from each of our labs. Both cases were very informative about the function of specific proteins during development. The first example describes a straightforward case, whereas the second example describes a case in which detective work was necessary to solve a mystery.
In the first example, MOs were used to explore the role of Notch signalling
in zebrafish neurogenesis. In the absence of Notch signalling, cells that
would normally become trunk neural crest develop as supernumerary Rohon-Beard
sensory neurons (Cornell and Eisen,
2000), suggesting that Notch signalling is required for the neural
crest fate. However, the use of MOs to knockdown Neurogenin 1 (Neurog1), a
proneural protein, revealed that Notch signalling is required only to prevent
neurogenesis, because the absence of both Notch signalling and Neurog1
restored normal trunk neural crest formation
(Cornell and Eisen, 2002).
| Box 1. Designing and storing translation-blocking MOs (see also
www.gene-tools.com)
|
In the second example, MOs were used to investigate the function of activin
in the early X. laevis embryo. Activin had long been known to have
powerful mesoderm-inducing activity in amphibian embryos
(Albano et al., 1990;
Asashima et al., 1990;
Smith et al., 1990;
Thomsen et al., 1990), but its
role in normal development was unclear until MOs were used to inhibit its
effects (Piepenburg et al.,
2004). In the course of these experiments, a MO designed to
inhibit translation of activin B caused defects in development, as well as the
dose-dependent downregulation of several mesodermal markers. A control MO with
four evenly spaced nucleotide changes had no such effect, suggesting that the
phenotype was specific. But, to the authors' surprise, no phenotype was
observed with a second MO, positioned 5' of the first, which was
predicted to be equally effective in inhibiting activin B translation.
Eventually, it was found that the 5' untranslated region of activin B
derived from the X. laevis colony maintained in the authors'
laboratory differed from that of the published sequence, such that two
nucleotides in the second MO did not match the target. When a perfectly
matched MO was injected into X. laevis embryos, it recapitulated the
original phenotype, indicating (but not proving) that the effect is specific.
`Rescue' experiments (see below) also indicated that the MOs used exerted a
specific effect, and the authors went on in later experiments to demonstrate
that the loss of activin function causes the misregulation of genes involved
in cell-cycle regulation (Ramis et al.,
2007). In addition to providing new insights into the role of
activin B, these experiments make the point that it is important to
re-sequence the MO target sequence in the strain of animal under study, to
avoid being misled by single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) or errors in
published sequences.
|
;
Gebski et al., 2003).
Splice-inhibiting MOs have the advantage that one can quantify the efficacy of
the MO (Draper et al., 2001).
In addition, because such MOs do not affect spliced maternal transcripts they
will normally allow genetic mutations to be phenocopied when the gene in
question also has a maternal function
(Bennett et al., 2007;
Gore et al., 2007;
Gore et al., 2005). MOs
designed to inhibit splicing have often been used to corroborate data obtained
with MOs that block translation. As with translation-blocking MOs, there are
now many examples of the use of splice-inhibiting MOs. Thus, we have chosen
two examples, one from each of our labs. In the first example, the Eisen
laboratory showed that the knockdown of zebrafish Islet1 protein with two
different splice-inhibiting MOs, either individually or in combination,
results in the same phenotype. In this case, motoneurons in MO-injected
embryos develop interneuron-like characteristics, providing evidence that
Islet1 functions both to promote motoneuron differentiation and to inhibit the
differentiation of some ventral interneurons
(Hutchinson and Eisen,
2006).
In the second example, the Smith group investigated the function of
neurotrophin receptor homologue (NRH1) proteins in mesoderm formation in frog
embryos (Knapp et al., 2006).
MOs targeted against the translation start sites of two related X.
laevis proteins indicated that NRH1 activity is required for expression
of Xbra and Chordin in the early embryo, but that
Goosecoid expression is less dependent on signalling through this
receptor. The downregulation of Xbra and Chordin was also
observed in X. tropicalis (a diploid species whose genome has been
sequenced), using one MO designed to inhibit the translation of NRH1, and two
MOs that prevented its correct splicing. The fact that similar results were
obtained in two species, and using both translation-blocking and
splice-inhibiting MOs, suggests that the observed effects are specific.
There has been considerable work on the best design for splice-inhibiting
MOs (Morcos, 2007). In
contrast to MOs designed to block translation, it is not possible to apply
general guidelines to the design of splice-inhibiting MOs, because genes
differ in their genomic structures and proteins in their functional domains.
For example, a truncated version of a protein may act as a dominant-negative
or even as a constitutively active form of the wild-type protein, or retention
of an intron might, if the mRNA remains in frame, not affect the function of a
protein. It is also possible that the use of splice-inhibiting MOs will reveal
cryptic splice donor or acceptor sites, resulting in the retention of a short
stretch of intron or the deletion of a short stretch of exon. This might cause
in-frame insertions or deletions in the protein of interest. The important
point, therefore, is to determine the sequence of the modified mRNA, to ask
what protein is encoded by it, and, if necessary, to test the function of that
protein.
microRNA-blocking MOs
MicroRNAs are short (about 22 nucleotides), non-coding RNA molecules that
regulate gene expression by both blocking the translation and promoting the
decay of their target mRNAs (Alvarez-Garcia
and Miska, 2005; Bushati and
Cohen, 2007; Farazi et al.,
2008). Various approaches have been used to block the functions of
individual microRNAs by means of antisense technologies. The most direct has
been to use antisense oligonucleotides that are complementary to the target
microRNA, and for these oligonucleotides to be modified in some way to
increase their stability. These modifications include the introduction of
2'-O-Me-modified nucleotides and phosphorothioate linkages;
and, to assist their delivery into liver cells of living mice, such 23-mer
RNAs have been covalently linked to cholesterol molecules
(Krutzfeldt et al., 2006;
Krutzfeldt et al., 2005).
Recently, MOs have also been used in such an approach. For example, in
zebrafish, MOs complementary to microRNA-214 (miR-214) have
revealed that this microRNA regulates expression of su(fu), which
encodes a modulator of Hedgehog signalling
(Flynt et al., 2007), and MOs
complementary to miR-140 have revealed that this microRNA regulates
Pdgf signalling during palate formation
(Eberhart et al., 2008). In
X. laevis, the activities of miR-15 and miR-16 have
been inhibited by the use of 2'-O-methylantisense
oligonucleotides and of MOs to reveal that these microRNAs target the type II
Nodal receptor Acvr2a (Martello et al.,
2007).
In an intriguing alternative approach, Schier and his colleagues have
`protected' the two zebrafish miR-430 targets ndr1 (also
known as squint; this gene encodes a Nodal-related signalling
molecule) and lefty (a Nodal antagonist) by introducing `target
protectors', MOs that are complementary to the microRNA binding sites.
Protection of the ndr1 miR-430 binding site resulted in an elevation
of Nodal signalling, and protection of the lefty site caused a
diminution (Choi et al.,
2007). This result illustrates both the utility of MOs in
endeavours of this sort, as well as the roles of microRNAs in modulating
levels of Nodal signalling.
Problems with MOs
For all these successes, there are difficulties with the MO technique, and there have undoubtedly been some misleading results. The main difficulties in interpreting experiments fall into three classes (see Box 2). First, it is important to know how effective the knock-down has been, and, second, the possibility of `off-target' effects has to be addressed; that is, the possibility that the MO inhibits the function of an irrelevant gene instead of, or in addition to, the intended gene. As discussed below, in addressing these problems, it is very helpful if the genome of the species under investigation has been sequenced and well annotated. The third problem is that it can be difficult, especially in small embryos, to inject precise and reproducible volumes of MO.
It is also important in interpreting experiments that make use of antisense
oligonucleotides to consider the mechanisms by which the reagent of choice
acts. For example, RNAi leads to the destruction of mRNA by RNase H activity,
whereas MOs interfere only with translation or with pre-mRNA splicing. In all
cases, if the experiment is designed properly, the protein that is encoded by
the mRNA should be knocked down by the antisense reagent. However, the mRNA
may or may not persist, depending on the antisense strategy that is used, and,
in some cases, mRNA levels may even increase, as the embryo attempts to
compensate for loss of the protein. In many cases, this may be of no
importance, but if the RNA has functions instead of, or in addition to, its
role as mRNA, changes in its level may be very significant indeed. For
example, the knockdown of VegT mRNA causes a decrease in VegT
protein, but it also causes the release of Vg1 mRNA from the vegetal
cortex of X. laevis embryos and a decrease in the amount of Vg1
protein (Heasman et al.,
2001). Bicaudal C and Wnt11 mRNAs also become
dispersed from the vegetal cortex. This phenomenon is observed only if
VegT mRNA is destroyed; MOs designed to inhibit VegT translation but
not to degrade VegT RNA have no effect on RNA localisation
(Heasman et al., 2001). In
this particular case, `rescue' experiments, in which VegT mRNA is
injected into the oocyte in an effort to replace the depleted transcripts,
suggest that the release of Vg1, Bicaudal C and Wnt11 mRNAs
from their vegetal position does not compromise development significantly,
because such embryos still form all three germ layers. In other cases,
however, the phenotype of embryos injected with a particular antisense RNA or
MO may indeed depend on whether or not the target mRNA persists.
| Box 2. Three potential problems with the use of MOs
|
Effectiveness of gene knockdown
As discussed above, many investigators use MOs targeted against the
initiation codon of the target mRNA. Simple as this approach might be, it
suffers from the fact that it is not possible to determine, without a suitable
way to test for the protein, how effectively the protein has been knocked
down. If an antibody is available that works well in vivo, it can provide a
high-resolution view of protein expression, even at the single-cell level, and
such antibodies can reliably report the downregulation of protein in cells of
MO-injected embryos (Hutchinson and Eisen,
2006). However, the antibody might not work well in vivo, in which
case it might be necessary to use western blotting. Unfortunately, a
significant drawback of this technique is that the sensitivity might be such
that one can determine effectiveness only on a rather large population of
animals. Similarly, although it might be possible to test for the presence of
a protein using an enzyme assay or a protein gel, these approaches are likely
to require a large number of animals and may not give the resolution required
for the experiment.
The determination of knockdown efficiency is clearly an essential step. A
common alternative is to express a form of the target protein that is tagged,
for example with the influenza haemagglutinin (HA) epitope or green
fluorescent protein (GFP), and to show that the MO can knockdown expression of
the tag in question (Collart et al.,
2005). Such an experiment is better than nothing - it demonstrates
at least that the MO can recognise its target mRNA in the cytoplasmic milieu -
but it cannot confirm that the endogenous protein is targeted, nor can it
predict the extent to which expression of the endogenous protein is inhibited.
It is therefore of the greatest importance to obtain a high-affinity specific
antibody for the gene product under study. This might prove to be difficult
and expensive, but there is no doubt that such an antibody will be an
essential research tool.
MOs designed to inhibit splicing have the great advantage that one can
determine, by PCR (polymerase chain reaction), how effective the reagent has
been, although it is important to note that a 50% reduction in mRNA levels
does not necessarily lead to a 50% reduction in protein levels! However,
incorrectly spliced pre-mRNAs often remain in the nucleus and their nuclear
localisation can be visualised using RNA in situ hybridisation
(Hutchinson and Eisen, 2006),
providing another measure of MO efficacy.
In the case of MOs designed to knockdown particular microRNAs, their
efficiency can be estimated by northern blots or by RNA in situ hybridisation.
For example, Plasterk and colleagues have investigated the function of
miR-375 in zebrafish and shown that this microRNA is necessary for
normal formation of the pancreatic islet
(Kloosterman et al., 2007). In
the course of control experiments, an MO complementary to mature
miR-206 was injected into zebrafish embryos and, at intervals
thereafter, embryos were subjected to RNA in situ hybridisation and northern
blotting. Both techniques revealed a significant reduction in levels of
miR-206 that was specific in the sense that levels of another
microRNA, miR-124, were unaffected by the miR-206 MO.
Additional experiments indicated that this decrease in miR-206 levels
did not occur because the MO interferes with the RNA isolation procedure, nor
because MOs affect microRNA stability. Rather, the MOs inhibit microRNA
maturation. Consistent with this suggestion, MOs targeting the cleavage sites
of the Drosha and Dicer enzymes that process precursor microRNAs also caused a
loss of miR-206 (Kloosterman et
al., 2007).
Although MOs are remarkably stable
(Nutt et al., 2001;
Summerton, 2007), their levels
may nevertheless fall slightly as development proceeds, and, although
zebrafish and frog embryos do not increase in volume during development,
numbers of nuclei increase dramatically, so that the intranuclear
concentration of MOs designed to inhibit splicing may decrease significantly.
Thus, it cannot be assumed that a MO that is effective for the first few hours
or days following injection will remain so over a longer period of time. It is
therefore essential to assay the efficacy of MOs over the entire time course
of an experiment. If the efficacy of a particular MO is inadequate at later
stages of development, it may be possible to use iontophoresis
(McWhorter et al., 2003) or
electroporation (Thummel et al.,
2006) into individual or small groups of cells to supplement MO
levels.
Off-target effects of MOs
A more insidious problem with the use of MOs, including those targeted to
the initiation codon and those designed to inhibit splicing, is that they may
have `off-target' effects. In other words, they might affect the production of
a completely irrelevant gene product, and the observed phenotype may be only
partially the result of, or in the worst case have nothing to do with, the
gene under study. Two published examples of such off-target effects come from
work on sea urchins and zebrafish. Unfortunately, there are likely to be many
other cases, many yet to be recognised, in which phenotypes caused by MOs are
non-specific.
In the sea urchin example, embryos injected with either of two MOs directed
against the S. purpuratus Runt gene, SpRunt, caused early
developmental arrest, whereas injection of either of two other MOs produced
gastrula stage defects (Coffman et al.,
2004). The first two MOs were the more effective at reducing
levels of SpRunt protein, but, remarkably, they also targeted two different
histones, thus causing the early phenotype. One MO, designated m1 and designed
to inhibit the translation of SpRunt, inhibited the synthesis of histone H3,
whereas another, designated m4 and designed to interfere with the splicing of
SpRunt mRNA, inhibited the translation of histone H4. It is to the
credit of the authors that they carried out meticulous controls in their
experiments (see below), and it is sobering to realise that in an MO of 25
nucleotides, just 18 (in the case of m1) or 20 (in the case of m4) need match
a target sequence for inhibition of protein synthesis to occur. As the authors
point out, S. purpuratus embryos develop at 15°C, so the
`stringency' of hybridisation is lower in sea urchins than in some other
species, but the point is clear nevertheless. We note that X. laevis
embryos can be cultured between 14°C and 24°C. Thus, until someone
carries out an experiment to directly test the effectiveness of the same MO in
embryos raised at different temperatures, to circumvent the potential problem
of the relationship between `stringency' and temperature, it may be sensible
for embryos injected with MOs to be incubated closer to the higher
temperature.
In the zebrafish example, researchers in Julian Lewis's laboratory were
studying the interaction between the membrane-associated scaffolding protein
Magi1 and the Notch ligand DeltaD (Wright
et al., 2004). Two MOs, one designed to interfere with splicing of
the magi1 mRNA and one directed against its translation start site,
caused a narrowing of the hindbrain and midbrain of the embryo. This phenotype
appeared specific, because it was not observed when the researchers used a
version of the translation-blocking MO that had five nucleotide changes.
However, this phenotype had been observed previously as a non-specific effect
of MOs (Ekker and Larson,
2001), and `spurred on by the doubts of a [Development]
referee', the authors went on to demonstrate that deltaD mutant
embryos did not show the narrowed-ventricle phenotype, but that it did occur
when these embryos were injected with the Magi1 MOs described above. Thus, it
appears that the Magi1 MOs cause a phenotype that is robust and consistent,
but nevertheless non-specific.
| Box 3. A summary of our recommendations Comparison with existing mutant. Should a mutation in the gene of interest be available, a careful comparison should be made between the phenotype of the mutant and that of morpholino-injected embryos, so as to reveal any off-target morpholino effects. Loss of protein. Whenever possible, the effect of each morpholino on protein levels should be verified by antibody staining or other assays. Incorrectly spliced pre-mRNA. A splice-inhibiting morpholino should be used for every target gene that has more than one exon. The effect of splice-inhibiting morpholinos should be verified by RT-PCR; the altered splice products should be verified by sequencing, and where necessary the function of the modified protein thus encoded should be investigated. In addition, RNA in situ hybridisation should be used to determine whether unspliced pre-mRNA is retained in the nucleus. Minimisation of off-target effects. At least two morpholinos should be designed against each target gene; it is best to have both a translation-blocker and a splice-inhibitor. These morpholinos should be tested independently to ensure that they give similar phenotypes, and also simultaneously to test for synergism. The latter will involve titrating these morpholinos down to a level at which they yield no phenotype, co-injecting them into embryos, and showing that together they yield the same phenotype as they yield independently. It is important to ensure that injection volumes are consistent in such experiments. RNA rescue. Co-injection of a form of the targeted RNA that is not recognised by the morpholino should be used to show that the effects of the morpholino are specific. In the case of morpholinos designed to interfere with splicing, the rescuing RNA can be the wild-type version; in the case of morpholinos designed to interfere with translation, the rescuing RNA should be made `immune' to the morpholino in question, either by removing the appropriate regions of the 5' untranslated region or by creating silent mutations in the coding sequence. Control morpholino. A control morpholino should always be used. This could be the standard control morpholino, a morpholino that affects a gene that is not expressed in the cells of interest, or a mismatch, scrambled or invert morpholino. We favour a five-base mismatch morpholino because this is most similar to the experimental morpholino, but one or more of the other control morpholinos may be more appropriate under some conditions.
|
The non-specific neural defects observed in the above experiments, and in
15-20% of all MO experiments carried out in zebrafish, are likely, as
explained below, to derive from the activation of p53 and consequent
p53-induced apoptosis (Robu et al.,
2007). The mechanism by which some MOs activate p53 is unknown,
and it is also a mystery that MOs activate predominantly a truncated form of
p53 (the D113 isoform), whereas it is the full-length version that is required
for the induction of cell death. Nevertheless, a MO that targets the
translation start site of p53 is effective at relieving non-specific neural
cell death in response to injection of some MOs
(Robu et al., 2007), and this
is likely to prove a powerful adjunct to MO experiments in the zebrafish
embryo. The caveat here is that it may be difficult to use MOs to study
developmental processes that involve p53-mediated cell death.
It is also worth noting that not all cell death in experiments using MOs is
non-specific. For example, a reduction in Cytochrome C oxidase activity caused
by MO injection results in cell death in the hindbrain and neural tube, but
this cannot be reduced by co-injection of a p53 MO
(Baden et al., 2007).
These examples should suffice to illustrate the potential hazards of using MOs in the study of early development. To what extent can use of the right controls allow researchers to distinguish between bona fide and spurious results?
Appropriate controls
Given the potential problems described above, how can investigators ensure that the phenotype they observe is specific, that it is the genuine consequence of the loss of function of the gene under investigation? We suggest several approaches and we recommend that they become standard controls for the use of MOs (see Box 3). We recognise that some of the controls we recommend will not be appropriate or will not work in every case. However, we suggest that researchers use as many controls as possible, so as to provide the strongest evidence for MO specificity.
The right control construct
The most obvious strategy to control MO experiments is to create control
animals that are identical to the MO-injected experimental animals in every
respect except that the MO injected into the controls should not interfere
with the function of the gene being tested. One type of control is a MO that
targets an exogenous gene that is not present in the species being tested. For
example, the company Gene Tools provides a `Standard Control' MO directed
against human β-globin pre-mRNA
(www.gene-tools.com/node/23#standardcontrols).
Although this reagent controls for the use of MOs in general, it does not
necessarily control for the use of any specific MO, and in particular it does
not control for the activation of p53 (see above). Therefore, for some
experiments (for example, those where it is not possible to carry out a
`rescue'), it might be preferable to select as a control a MO that more
closely resembles the experimental MO. This control MO might be a randomised
version of the specific MO, or its invert, or it might differ in a particular
number of nucleotides. Unfortunately, there is no consensus on how many
nucleotides should differ in the control MO, and the number may not be the
same for different target sequences (depending, for example, on how GC-rich
they are, on the species under study, or on the culture conditions). As
discussed above, it is possible that MOs introduced into species that develop
at a lower temperature might recognise their targets even if several
nucleotides have been changed.
Our experience has shown that a 25-mer MO that differs in four nucleotides
from the experimental MO can have an effect similar to the experimental MO
when injected at high concentration into zebrafish embryos, but no effect when
injected at a lower concentration (Cornell
and Eisen, 2002). Similarly, in X. tropicalis, 25-mer MOs
that differ in five nucleotides from the target sequence have little effect on
translation (Rana et al.,
2006). Thus, based on this rather limited information, if the Gene
Tools standard control MO is inappropriate, we recommend using five-nucleotide
mismatch MOs as a control for the injection process itself, for the
introduction of significant amounts of exogenous oligonucleotides, and for the
specificity of a particular MO. To our knowledge, no one has published a
systematic comparison of the optimal number of nucleotide mismatches under
various conditions, and although such a study would be expensive to undertake,
it would provide important baseline information for the design of MO controls.
In the meantime, in designing MOs, it would be wise to conduct a BLAST search
using the proposed sequence, and to reject the sequence if it differs by fewer
than five nucleotides from a sequence near the translation start site of any
unrelated gene or indeed near a splice junction of an unrelated gene.
Use of mismatch MOs
We described above that MOs that differ by five out of 25 nucleotides from
their target sequence appear not to interfere with translation of the target
mRNA, whereas at least some MOs that differ from the target sequence by four
nucleotides do interfere, at least when injected at high concentration. It is
instructive, and sobering, to ask how likely it is that a 25-mer might
recognise a target that differs from the intended one. Theoretical
calculations based on the X. tropicalis genome sequence indicate that
there is a probability of about 0.3 that a particular translation-blocking MO
will match another target sequence near a translation start site with four or
fewer mismatches (Rana et al.,
2006). And if one takes into account the possibility that the MO
might instead interfere with mRNA splicing, the chance of off-target effects
increases to 0.5. The strength of a phenotype obtained using a MO with three
or four mismatches is likely to be relatively weak, but clearly, even if a
`control' MO causes no phenotype, it is still possible that the phenotype
observed with the `specific' MO is an artefact. Therefore, although using a
five-nucleotide mismatch MO control is wise, by itself this control is
insufficient, and we recommend using additional controls, as described below.
We note that, although these calculations were made for X.
tropicalis, the conclusions will be similar for vertebrate species of
comparable genome sizes.
Use of different MOs targeting the same gene
The pessimistic calculations outlined above suggest that for every two MOs
introduced into a developing embryo, one will elicit non-specific effects. At
first sight this represents an untenable situation: how can such experiments
be interpreted? But in practice things are not so bad. The strengths of the
off-target phenotypes are likely to be weak, and concerns can be addressed by
designing a second, non-overlapping MO against the gene of interest. The
chance of both MOs yielding an off-target effect may be 0.25, but the chance
of the two off-target effects being the same is considerably lower. Thus, if
the phenotypes caused by the two reagents are similar, one can be more
confident that they really shed light on the function of the intended target
gene. Even more confidence can be gained if the same phenotype is observed
when two MOs are injected together at low levels that do not elicit phenotypes
on their own. This can be achieved by generating a `dose-response' curve for
each MO, by titrating it down to a level at which it does not elicit a
phenotype, and then injecting the two MOs together at these low concentrations
(Maves et al., 2002). In
carrying out such experiments, it is essential to take great care in
controlling injection volumes and to repeat the experiment on at least three
independent occasions. These precautions are crucial because a two- or
threefold variation in injection volumes in quantitative experiments of this
sort may lead to misleading results.
In practice, as shown by the SpRunt experiments described above, it might be sensible to use three or even four MOs targeted against the gene of interest. Two of these might be designed to block translation of the protein and two designed to inhibit correct pre-mRNA splicing. The interpretation of such experiments must take into account that different MOs might have different `penetrances', such that a high dose of one MO yields the same phenotype as a low dose of another. Thus, the experimenter will need to construct a dose-response curve and inject a range of concentrations of each MO to make valid comparisons.
Finally, as an alternative to using different MOs, it may be possible to
use closely related species to verify the phenotype produced by a MO. For
example, the function of genes such as NRH1 can be tested in both X.
laevis and X. tropicalis
(Knapp et al., 2006). Such an
approach requires caution, however, and it may be dangerous to make
comparisons across different genera. For example, Fgf8 is necessary
for heart development in ray-fin fish and in tetrapods, but in zebrafish it is
fgf8a that plays this role and in the stickleback Gasterosteus
aculeatus it is fgf8b
(Jovelin et al., 2007). This
observation suggests that the heart function of the two fgf8
duplicates was conserved in the common ancestor of zebrafish and stickleback
after genome duplication in the ray-fin fish lineage, but that the expression
of the two paralogues subsequently diverged. It will be interesting in the
future to design MOs to target the different paralogues of the tetraploid
species X. laevis, to investigate whether they have different
functions, and to compare the resulting phenotypes with those observed in the
diploid species X. tropicalis.
Together, these considerations lead us to suggest that, for any gene, at least two MOs should be designed, with one, if possible, designed to inhibit correct pre-mRNA splicing. Even if antibodies are unavailable, this will allow some quantification of the effect of the MO. We suggest that for each MO a dose-response curve is prepared, and that co-injection of two MOs at below threshold levels should also be carried out in an effort to search for synergy (see Box 3).
Rescue
None of the controls described above is perfect. It is always possible that
a MO will have off-target effects, and it will not always be feasible to
alleviate these by injection, for example, of a MO targeted against p53. The
most reliable control, therefore, is to attempt to `rescue' the phenotype by
introducing the gene product of interest in a form that is immune to the MO,
most commonly by injecting RNA at the one-cell stage. For MOs targeted against
the translation start site, this might be achieved by removing the 5'
untranslated region of the mRNA or by introducing silent mutations into the
coding region. Such a difficulty does not arise for MOs designed to inhibit
pre-mRNA splicing. As mentioned above, different MOs may have different
penetrances, and this also holds true for different mRNAs. Thus, when doing
rescue experiments, it is important to achieve appropriate levels of injected
MO and mRNA. We therefore recommend paying particular attention to injection
volumes, injecting a variety of concentrations and also comparing embryos from
the same batch that have been injected with MO alone or with MO plus mRNA
(Little and Mullins,
2004).
For those genes that are expressed ubiquitously or that have no
overexpression phenotype, rescue experiments of this sort might be
straightforward. However, for genes that are expressed in a restricted manner,
or that have a strong overexpression phenotype, obtaining a true rescue may be
difficult or impossible. In particular, it might become necessary to drive
expression of the gene in its correct spatial pattern at the correct levels.
This may not be straightforward or even possible in some cases, but it might
be possible to devise molecular assays that suffice. For example, perfect
rescue of the loss of a mesoderm-inducing factor may not be possible because
the inducing factor has to be expressed in a precise spatiotemporal manner
(Piepenburg et al., 2004). It
might, however, be feasible to assay for the expression of one or more of its
target genes.
Conclusions
It should be apparent from this article that morpholino technologies provide powerful approaches for the study of early development. Indeed, in many cases, if one wants to know the function of a gene, currently there is no alternative. But it should be equally apparent that interpretation of the results of morpholino experiments, as for experiments in general, depends entirely on appropriate controls. These controls allow the experimenter to rule out off-target effects, and provide a high level of confidence in the specificity of the MO and the validity of the results. As enterprising researchers design more and more sophisticated uses for MOs, it behoves us all to ensure that they are matched by the sophistication of the controls. Therefore, our strongest recommendation is to take these controls seriously, both as experimenters and as reviewers.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank our many colleagues, too numerous to name, for the technical advances and lively discussions that have prompted us to write this review. We apologise to the many colleagues whose work has not been cited. We particularly thank John Postlethwait, Monte Westerfield, Kevin Dingwell and Amer Rana for comments on earlier versions of the manuscript, and Chi-Bin Chien and Richard Dorsky and the other reviewers of the manuscript for their very helpful comments. Work in the Eisen Laboratory is supported by the National Institutes of Health, the Broad Foundation and the Oregon Medical Research Foundation. Work in the Smith Laboratory is supported by the Wellcome Trust, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, and the European Union Network of Excellence consortium `Cells into Organs'.
REFERENCES
Agaisse, H., Burrack, L. S., Philips, J. A., Rubin, E. J.,
Perrimon, N. and Higgins, D. E. (2005). Genome-wide RNAi
screen for host factors required for intracellular bacterial infection.
Science 309,1248
-1251.
Albano, R. M., Godsave, S. F., Huylebroeck, D., Van Nimmen, K.,
Isaacs, H. V., Slack, J. M. and Smith, J. C. (1990). A
mesoderm-inducing factor produced by WEHI-3 murine myelomonocytic leukemia
cells is activin A. Development
110,435
-443.
Alvarez-Garcia, I. and Miska, E. A. (2005).
MicroRNA functions in animal development and human disease.
Development 132,4653
-4662.
Asashima, M., Nakano, H., Uchiyama, H., Davids, M., Plessow, S.,
Loppnow-Blinde, B., Hoppe, P., Dau, H. and Tiedemann, H.
(1990). The vegetalizing factor belongs to a family of
mesoderm-inducing proteins related to erythroid differentiation factor.
Naturwissenschaften 77,389
-391.[CrossRef][Medline]
Baden, K. N., Murray, J., Capaldi, R. A. and Guillemin, K.
(2007). Early developmental pathology due to cytochrome C oxidase
deficiency is revealed by a new zebrafish model. J. Biol.
Chem. 282,34839
-34849.
Bennett, J. T., Stickney, H. L., Choi, W. Y., Ciruna, B.,
Talbot, W. S. and Schier, A. F. (2007). Maternal nodal and
zebrafish embryogenesis. Nature
438,1030
-1035.
Birsoy, B., Kofron, M., Schaible, K., Wylie, C. and Heasman,
J. (2006). Vg 1 is an essential signaling molecule in Xenopus
development. Development
133, 15-20.
Boutros, M., Kiger, A. A., Armknecht, S., Kerr, K., Hild, M.,
Koch, B., Haas, S. A., Paro, R. and Perrimon, N. (2004).
Genome-wide RNAi analysis of growth and viability in Drosophila cells.
Science 303,832
-835.
Bushati, N. and Cohen, S. M. (2007). microRNA
functions. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol.
23,175
-205.[CrossRef][Medline]
Carvajal, J. J., Cox, D., Summerbell, D. and Rigby, P. W.
(2001). A BAC transgenic analysis of the Mrf4/Myf5 locus reveals
interdigitated elements that control activation and maintenance of gene
expression during muscle development. Development
128,1857
-1868.[Abstract]
Choi, W. Y., Giraldez, A. J. and Schier, A. F.
(2007). Target protectors reveal dampening and balancing of Nodal
agonist and antagonist by miR-430. Science
318,271
-274.
Coffman, J. A., Dickey-Sims, C., Haug, J. S., McCarthy, J. J.
and Robertson, A. J. (2004). Evaluation of developmental
phenotypes produced by morpholino antisense targeting of a sea urchin Runx
gene. BMC Biol. 2,6
.[CrossRef][Medline]
Collart, C., Verschueren, K., Rana, A., Smith, J. C. and
Huylebroeck, D. (2005). The novel Smad-interacting protein
Smicl regulates Chordin expression in the Xenopus embryo.
Development 132,4575
-4586.
Coonrod, S. A., Bolling, L. C., Wright, P. W., Visconti, P. E.
and Herr, J. C. (2001). A morpholino phenocopy of the mouse
mos mutation. Genesis
30,198
-200.[CrossRef][Medline]
Corey, D. R. and Abrams, J. M. (2001).
Morpholino antisense oligonucleotides: tools for investigating vertebrate
development. Genome Biol.
2, reviews 1015.1-1015.3.
Cornell, R. A. and Eisen, J. S. (2000). Delta
signaling mediates segregation of neural crest and spinal sensory neurons from
zebrafish lateral neural plate. Development
127,2873
-2882.[Abstract]
Cornell, R. A. and Eisen, J. S. (2002).
Delta/Notch signaling promotes formation of zebrafish neural crest by
repressing Neurogenin 1 function. Development
129,2639
-2648.
Couzin, J. (2006). Nobel Prize in Physiology or
Medicine. Method to silence genes earns loud praise.
Science 314,34
.
Dasgupta, R., Nybakken, K., Booker, M., Mathey-Prevot, B.,
Gonsalves, F., Changkakoty, B. and Perrimon, N. (2007). A
case study of the reproducibility of transcriptional reporter cell-based RNAi
screens in Drosophila. Genome Biol.
8, R203.[CrossRef][Medline]
Draper, B. W., Morcos, P. A. and Kimmel, C. B.
(2001). Inhibition of zebrafish fgf8 pre-mRNA splicing with
morpholino oligos: a quantifiable method for gene knockdown.
Genesis 30,154
-156.[CrossRef][Medline]
Eberhart, J. K., He, X., Swartz, M. E., Yan, Y. L., Song, H.,
Boling, T. C., Kunerth, A. K., Walker, M. B., Kimmel, C. B. and Postlethwait,
J. H. (2008). MicroRNA Mirn140 modulates Pdgf signaling
during palatogenesis. Nat. Genet.
40,290
-298.[CrossRef][Medline]
Ekker, S. C. (2000). Morphants: a new
systematic vertebrate functional genomics approach.
Yeast 17,302
-306.[CrossRef][Medline]
Ekker, S. C. and Larson, J. D. (2001). Morphant
technology in model developmental systems. Genesis
30, 89-93.[CrossRef][Medline]
Farazi, T. A., Juranek, S. A. and Tuschl, T.
(2008). The growing catalog of small RNAs and their association
with distinct Argonaute/Piwi family members.
Development 135,1201
-1214.
Fire, A., Xu, S., Montgomery, M. K., Kostas, S. A., Driver, S.
E. and Mello, C. C. (1998). Potent and specific genetic
interference by double-stranded RNA in Caenorhabditis elegans.
Nature 391,806
-811.[CrossRef][Medline]
Flynt, A. S., Li, N., Thatcher, E. J., Solnica-Krezel, L. and
Patton, J. G. (2007). Zebrafish miR-214 modulates Hedgehog
signaling to specify muscle cell fate. Nat. Genet.
39,259
-263.[CrossRef][Medline]
Friedman, A. and Perrimon, N. (2006). A
functional RNAi screen for regulators of receptor tyrosine kinase and ERK
signalling. Nature 444,230
-234.[CrossRef][Medline]
Gebski, B. L., Mann, C. J., Fletcher, S. and Wilton, S. D.
(2003). Morpholino antisense oligonucleotide induced dystrophin
exon 23 skipping in mdx mouse muscle. Hum. Mol. Genet.
12,1801
-1811.
Gonczy, P., Echeverri, C., Oegema, K., Coulson, A., Jones, S.
J., Copley, R. R., Duperon, J., Oegema, J., Brehm, M., Cassin, E. et al.
(2000). Functional genomic analysis of cell division in C.
elegans using RNAi of genes on chromosome III. Nature
408,331
-336.[CrossRef][Medline]
Gore, A. V., Maegawa, S., Cheong, A., Gilligan, P. C., Weinberg,
E. S. and Sampath, K. (2005). The zebrafish dorsal axis is
apparent at the four-cell stage. Nature
438,1030
-1035.[CrossRef][Medline]
Gore, A. V., Cheong, A., Gilligan, P. C. and Sampath, K.
(2007). Gore et al. reply. Nature
450, E2-E4.[CrossRef]
Harland, R. and Weintraub, H. (1985).
Translation of mRNA injected into Xenopus oocytes is specifically inhibited by
antisense RNA. J. Cell Biol.
101,1094
-1099.
Heasman, J. (2002). Morpholino oligos: making
sense of antisense? Dev. Biol.
243,209
-214.[CrossRef][Medline]
Heasman, J., Kofron, M. and Wylie, C. (2000).
Beta-catenin signaling activity dissected in the early Xenopus embryo: a novel
antisense approach. Dev. Biol.
222,124
-134.[CrossRef][Medline]
Heasman, J., Wessely, O., Langland, R., Craig, E. J. and
Kessler, D. S. (2001). Vegetal localization of maternal mRNAs
is disrupted by VegT depletion. Dev. Biol.
240,377
-386.[CrossRef][Medline]
Hutchinson, S. A. and Eisen, J. S. (2006).
Islet1 and Islet2 have equivalent abilities to promote motoneuron formation
and to specify motoneuron subtype identity.
Development 133,2137
-2147.
Izant, J. G. and Weintraub, H. (1984).
Inhibition of thymidine kinase gene expression by anti-sense RNA: a molecular
approach to genetic analysis. Cell
36,1007
-1015.[CrossRef][Medline]
Izant, J. G. and Weintraub, H. (1985).
Constitutive and conditional suppression of exogenous and endogenous genes by
anti-sense RNA. Science
229,345
-352.
Jovelin, R., He, X., Amores, A., Yan, Y. L., Shi, R., Qin, B.,
Roe, B., Cresko, W. A. and Postlethwait, J. H. (2007).
Duplication and divergence of fgf8 functions in teleost development and
evolution. J. Exp. Zool. B Mol. Dev. Evol.
308,730
-743.[Medline]
Kamath, R. S., Fraser, A. G., Dong, Y., Poulin, G., Durbin, R.,
Gotta, M., Kanapin, A., Le Bot, N., Moreno, S., Sohrmann, M. et al.
(2003). Systematic functional analysis of the Caenorhabditis
elegans genome using RNAi. Nature
421,231
-237.[CrossRef][Medline]
Kloosterman, W. P., Lagendijk, A. K., Ketting, R. F., Moulton,
J. D. and Plasterk, R. H. (2007). Targeted inhibition of
miRNA maturation with morpholinos reveals a role for miR-375 in pancreatic
islet development. PLoS Biol.
5, e203.[CrossRef][Medline]
Knapp, D., Messenger, N., Rana, A. A. and Smith, J. C.
(2006). Neurotrophin receptor homolog (NRH1) proteins regulate
mesoderm formation and apoptosis during early Xenopus development.
Dev. Biol. 300,554
-569.[CrossRef][Medline]
Kos, R., Reedy, M. V., Johnson, R. L. and Erickson, C. A.
(2001). The winged-helix transcription factor FoxD3 is important
for establishing the neural crest lineage and repressing melanogenesis in
avian embryos. Development
128,1467
-1479.[Abstract]
Krutzfeldt, J., Rajewsky, N., Braich, R., Rajeev, K. G., Tuschl,
T., Manoharan, M. and Stoffel, M. (2005). Silencing of
microRNAs in vivo with `antagomirs'. Nature
438,685
-689.[CrossRef][Medline]
Krutzfeldt, J., Poy, M. N. and Stoffel, M.
(2006). Strategies to determine the biological function of
microRNAs. Nat. Genet.
38,S14
-S19.[CrossRef][Medline]
Li, M. and Rohrer, B. (2006). Gene silencing in
Xenopus laevis by DNA vector-based RNA interference and transgenesis.
Cell Res. 16,99
-105.[CrossRef][Medline]
Little, S. C. and Mullins, M. C. (2004).
Twisted gastrulation promotes BMP signaling in zebrafish dorsal-ventral axial
patterning. Development
131,5825
-5835.
Lombardo, A. and Slack, J. M. (1997).
Inhibition of eFGF expression in Xenopus embryos by antisense mRNA.
Dev. Dyn. 208,162
-169.[CrossRef][Medline]
Ma, Y., Creanga, A., Lum, L. and Beachy, P. A.
(2006). Prevalence of off-target effects in Drosophila RNA
interference screens. Nature
443,359
-363.[CrossRef][Medline]
Martello, G., Zacchigna, L., Inui, M., Montagner, M., Adorno,
M., Mamidi, A., Morsut, L., Soligo, S., Tran, U., Dupont, S. et al.
(2007). MicroRNA control of Nodal signalling.
Nature 449,183
-188.[CrossRef][Medline]
Maves, L., Jackman, W. and Kimmel, C. B.
(2002). FGF3 and FGF8 mediate a rhombomere 4 signaling activity
in the zebrafish hindbrain. Development
129,3825
-3837.[Medline]
McWhorter, M. L., Monani, U. R., Burghes, A. H. and Beattie, C.
E. (2003). Knockdown of the survival motor neuron (Smn)
protein in zebrafish causes defects in motor axon outgrowth and pathfinding.
J. Cell Biol. 162,919
-931.
Melton, D. A. (1985). Injected anti-sense RNAs
specifically block messenger RNA translation in vivo. Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. USA 82,144
-148.
Mendes Soares, L. M. and Valcarcel, J. (2006).
The expanding transcriptome: the genome as the `Book of Sand'. EMBO
J. 25,923
-931.[CrossRef][Medline]
Morcos, P. A. (2007). Achieving targeted and
quantifiable alteration of mRNA splicing with Morpholino oligos.
Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun.
358,521
-527.[CrossRef][Medline]
Nakano, H., Amemiya, S., Shiokawa, K. and Taira, M.
(2000). RNA interference for the organizer-specific gene Xlim-1
in Xenopus embryos. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun.
274,434
-439.[CrossRef][Medline]
Nasevicius, A. and Ekker, S. C. (2000).
Effective targeted gene `knockdown' in zebrafish. Nat.
Genet. 26,216
-220.[CrossRef][Medline]
Nature Genetics Editorial (2000). Targeting
zebrafish. Nat. Genet.
26,129
-130.[CrossRef][Medline]
Nutt, S. L., Bronchain, O. J., Hartley, K. O. and Amaya, E.
(2001). Comparison of morpholino based translational inhibition
during the development of Xenopus laevis and Xenopus tropicalis.
Genesis 30,110
-113.[CrossRef][Medline]
Oates, A. C., Bruce, A. E. and Ho, R. K.
(2000). Too much interference: injection of double-stranded RNA
has nonspecific effects in the zebrafish embryo. Dev.
Biol. 224,20
-28.[CrossRef][Medline]
Piepenburg, O., Grimmer, D., Williams, P. H. and Smith, J.
C. (2004). Activin redux: specification of mesodermal pattern
in Xenopus by graded concentrations of endogenous activin B.
Development 131,4977
-4986.
Ramis, J. M., Collart, C. and Smith, J. C.
(2007). Xnrs and activin regulate distinct genes during xenopus
development: activin regulates cell division. PLoS ONE
2, e213.[CrossRef]
Rana, A. A., Collart, C., Gilchrist, M. J. and Smith, J. C.
(2006). Defining synphenotype groups in Xenopus tropicalis by use
of antisense morpholino oligonucleotides. PLoS Genet.
2, e193.[CrossRef][Medline]
Robu, M. E., Larson, J. D., Nasevicius, A., Beiraghi, S.,
Brenner, C., Farber, S. A. and Ekker, S. C. (2007). p53
activation by knockdown technologies. PLoS Genet.
3, e78.[CrossRef][Medline]
Satou, Y., Imai, K. S. and Satoh, N. (2001).
Action of morpholinos in Ciona embryos. Genesis
30,103
-106.[CrossRef][Medline]
Schmidt-Supprian, M. and Rajewsky, K. (2007).
Vagaries of conditional gene targeting. Nat. Immunol.
8, 665-668.[CrossRef][Medline]
Shestopalov, I. A., Sinha, S. and Chen, J. K.
(2007). Light-controlled gene silencing in zebrafish embryos.
Nat. Chem. Biol. 3,650
-651.[CrossRef][Medline]
Smith, J. C., Price, B. M., Van Nimmen, K. and Huylebroeck,
D. (1990). Identification of a potent Xenopus
mesoderm-inducing factor as a homologue of activin A.
Nature 345,729
-731.[CrossRef][Medline]
Sonnichsen, B., Koski, L. B., Walsh, A., Marschall, P., Neumann,
B., Brehm, M., Alleaume, A. M., Artelt, J., Bettencourt, P., Cassin, E. et
al. (2005). Full-genome RNAi profiling of early embryogenesis
in Caenorhabditis elegans. Nature
434,462
-469.[CrossRef][Medline]
Steinbeisser, H., Fainsod, A., Niehrs, C., Sasai, Y. and De
Robertis, E. M. (1995). The role of gsc and BMP-4 in
dorsal-ventral patterning of the marginal zone in Xenopus: a loss-of-function
study using antisense RNA. EMBO J.
14,5230
-5243.[Medline]
Summerton, J. (1999). Morpholino antisense
oligomers: the case for an RNase H-independent structural type.
Biochim. Biophys. Acta
1489,141
-158.[Medline]
Summerton, J. E. (2007). Morpholino, siRNA, and
S-DNA compared: impact of structure and mechanism of action on off-target
effects and sequence specificity. Curr. Top. Med.
Chem. 7,651
-660.[CrossRef][Medline]
Svoboda, P. (2007). Off-targeting and other
non-specific effects of RNAi experiments in mammalian cells. Curr.
Opin. Mol. Ther. 9,248
-257.[Medline]
Thomsen, G., Woolf, T., Whitman, M., Sokol, S., Vaughan, J.,
Vale, W. and Melton, D. A. (1990). Activins are expressed
early in Xenopus embryogenesis and can induce axial mesoderm and anterior
structures. Cell 63,485
-493.[CrossRef][Medline]
Thummel, R., Bai, S., Sarras, M. P., Jr, Song, P., McDermott,
J., Brewer, J., Perry, M., Zhang, X., Hyde, D. R. and Godwin, A. R.
(2006). Inhibition of zebrafish fin regeneration using in vivo
electroporation of morpholinos against fgfr1 and msxb. Dev.
Dyn. 235,336
-346.[CrossRef][Medline]
Wright, G. J., Leslie, J. D., Ariza-McNaughton, L. and Lewis,
J. (2004). Delta proteins and MAGI proteins: an interaction
of Notch ligands with intracellular scaffolding molecules and its significance
for zebrafish development. Development
131,5659
-5669.
Wylie, C. C. and Heasman, J. (1997). What my
mother told me: examining the roles of maternal gene products in a vertebrate.
Trends Cell Biol. 7,459
-462.[CrossRef][Medline]
Zhang, J., Houston, D. W., King, M. L., Payne, C., Wylie, C. and
Heasman, J. (1998). The role of maternal VegT in establishing
the primary germ layers in Xenopus embryos. Cell
94,515
-524.[CrossRef][Medline]
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati 
Twitter What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  M. Bayaa, B. Vulesevic, A. Esbaugh, M. Braun, M. E. Ekker, M. Grosell, and S. F. Perry The involvement of SLC26 anion transporters in chloride uptake in zebrafish (Danio rerio) larvae J. Exp. Biol., October 15, 2009; 212(20): 3283 - 3295. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 H. Torigoe, K. Sasaki, and T. Katayama Thermodynamic and Kinetic Effects of Morpholino Modification on Pyrimidine Motif Triplex Nucleic Acid Formation under Physiological Condition J. Biochem., August 1, 2009; 146(2): 173 - 183. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. L. Steele, K. H. A. Lo, V. W. T. Li, S. H. Cheng, M. Ekker, and S. F. Perry Loss of M2 muscarinic receptor function inhibits development of hypoxic bradycardia and alters cardiac {beta}-adrenergic sensitivity in larval zebrafish (Danio rerio) Am J Physiol Regulatory Integrative Comp Physiol, August 1, 2009; 297(2): R412 - R420. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 T. Fukazawa, Y. Naora, T. Kunieda, and T. Kubo Suppression of the immune response potentiates tadpole tail regeneration during the refractory period Development, July 15, 2009; 136(14): 2323 - 2327. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Shao, Z.-Z. Liu, C.-D. Wang, H.-Y. Li, C. Carron, H.-W. Zhang, and D.-L. Shi Down syndrome critical region protein 5 regulates membrane localization of Wnt receptors, Dishevelled stability and convergent extension in vertebrate embryos Development, June 15, 2009; 136(12): 2121 - 2131. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. H. Braun, S. L. Steele, M. Ekker, and S. F. Perry Nitrogen excretion in developing zebrafish (Danio rerio): a role for Rh proteins and urea transporters Am J Physiol Renal Physiol, May 1, 2009; 296(5): F994 - F1005. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. W. Ingham The power of the zebrafish for disease analysis Hum. Mol. Genet., April 15, 2009; 18(R1): R107 - R112. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. H. Pineda, C. S. Knoeckel, A. D. Taylor, A. Estrada-Bernal, and A. B. Ribera Kv1 Potassium Channel Complexes In Vivo Require Kv{beta}2 Subunits in Dorsal Spinal Neurons J Neurophysiol, October 1, 2008; 100(4): 2125 - 2136. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
, the molar absorbance provided on the MO product
information sheet (see
exon2 MO is designed to exclude exon 2
from the mature RNA. In this case, exon 3 would no longer be in frame with
exon 1, and a truncated protein consisting of 15 correct amino acids followed
by 25 missense residues would be formed before a stop codon is encountered.
Deletion of exon 2 in this way should cause the combination of F1
and R1 to yield no PCR product, and F1 and R2
should yield a product of 360 bp. (E) Verification of the efficacy of MOs
+intron1 and 
50%. Note that the predicted 9.5 kb band in lane 4 is absent, probably
because the PCR conditions do not efficiently amplify products of this size.
(F) Activation of a caged morpholino. An inhibitory oligonucleotide is
coupled to a specific MO through a photocleavable linker. Irradiation [10
seconds of 360 nm light (h
)] cleaves the linker and allows the MO to exert
its effects. B-D are redrawn, and E is reproduced, with permission, from Knapp
et al. (Knapp et al., 2006