Microarrays enable researchers to monitor the expression of thousands of genes simultaneously. However, the sensitivity, accuracy, specificity, and reproducibility are major challenges for this technology. Cross-hybridization, combination with splice variants, is a prime source for the discrepancies in differential gene expression calls among various microarray platforms. Removing (either from production or downstream bioinformatic analysis) and/or redesigning the microarray probes prone to cross-hybridization is a reasonable strategy to increase the hybridization specificity and hence, the accuracy of the microarray measurements.
Microarrays enable researchers to monitor the expression of thousands of genes simultaneously. However, the sensitivity, accuracy, specificity, and reproducibility are major challenges for this technology. Cross-hybridization, combination with splice variants, is a prime source for the discrepancies in differential gene expression calls among various microarray platforms. Removing (either from production or downstream bioinformatic analysis) and/or redesigning the microarray probes prone to cross-hybridization is a reasonable strategy to increase the hybridization specificity and hence, the accuracy of the microarray measurements.
Microarrays enable researchers to monitor the expression of thousands of genes simultaneously. However, the sensitivity, accuracy, specificity, and reproducibility are major challenges for this technology. Cross-hybridization, combination with splice variants, is a prime source for the discrepancies in differential gene expression calls among various microarray platforms. Removing (either from production or downstream bioinformatic analysis) and/or redesigning the microarray probes prone to cross-hybridization is a reasonable strategy to increase the hybridization specificity and hence, the accuracy of the microarray measurements.
Microarrays enable researchers to monitor the expression of thousands of genes simultaneously. However, the sensitivity, accuracy, specificity, and reproducibility are major challenges for this technology. Cross-hybridization, combination with splice variants, is a prime source for the discrepancies in differential gene expression calls among various microarray platforms. Removing (either from production or downstream bioinformatic analysis) and/or redesigning the microarray probes prone to cross-hybridization is a reasonable strategy to increase the hybridization specificity and hence, the accuracy of the microarray measurements.
Microarrays enable researchers to monitor the expression of thousands of genes simultaneously. However, the sensitivity, accuracy, specificity, and reproducibility are major challenges for this technology. Cross-hybridization, combination with splice variants, is a prime source for the discrepancies in differential gene expression calls among various microarray platforms. Removing (either from production or downstream bioinformatic analysis) and/or redesigning the microarray probes prone to cross-hybridization is a reasonable strategy to increase the hybridization specificity and hence, the accuracy of the microarray measurements.
As autophagy is a multi-step process which includes not just the formation of autophagosomes, but most importantly, flux through the entire system, including the degradation upon fusion with lysosomes, which makes it quite challenging for detection. There are several methods for detection in mammalian cells, including immunoblotting analysis of LC3 and p62 and detection of autophagosome formation/maturation by fluorescence microscopy, Currently, there is no single “gold standard” for determining the autophagic activity that is applicable in every experimental context, hence it is recommended to go for the combined use of multiple methods to accurately assess the autophagic activity in any given biological setting.
As autophagy is a multi-step process which includes not just the formation of autophagosomes, but most importantly, flux through the entire system, including the degradation upon fusion with lysosomes, which makes it quite challenging for detection. There are several methods for detection in mammalian cells, including immunoblotting analysis of LC3 and p62 and detection of autophagosome formation/maturation by fluorescence microscopy, Currently, there is no single “gold standard” for determining the autophagic activity that is applicable in every experimental context, hence it is recommended to go for the combined use of multiple methods to accurately assess the autophagic activity in any given biological setting.
DNA-protein interactions are studied by using ChIP. The basic steps in this technique are crosslinking, sonication, immunoprecipitation, and analysis of the immunoprecipitated DNA. During ChIP, if chromatin is under-fragmented or fragments are too large which can lead to the increased background and lower resolution. Shorter cross-linking times (5-10 min) and/or lower formaldehyde concentrations (<1%) may improve shearing efficiency. If Chromatin is over-fragmented, then optimize shearing conditions for each cell type to improve ChIP efficiency. Over-sonication of chromatin may disrupt chromatin integrity and denature antibody epitopes. If you do not see any product or very little product in the input PCR reactions, add 5–10 μg chromatin per IP.
Get tips on using Dansylcadaverine to perform Autophagy assay cell type - HT1080
The RNA-guided CRISPR-Cas9 nuclease system has revolutionized the genome editing practices. For the most part, the Cas9-mediated genome editing is performed either via nonhomologous end joining (NHEJ) or homology-directed repair (HDR) in mammalian cells, However, designing of specific sgRNAs and minimizing off-target cleavage mediated mutagenesis are the major challenges in CRISPR-Cas based genome editing. To circumvent these issues, we can take advantages of many available tools and approaches for sgRNA construction and delivery.
Fill out your contact details and receive price quotes in your Inbox
Outsource experiment