Dataset Information

Hidden Pitfalls of Using Onion Pollen in Molecular Research.

ABSTRACT: There is little information on the use of pollen in molecular research, despite the increased interest in genome editing by pollen-mediated transformation. This paper presents an essential toolbox of technical procedures and observations for molecular studies on onion (Allium cepa L.) pollen. PCR is a useful tool as an express method to evaluate editing results before pollination. A direct PCR protocol for pollen suspension has been adapted without needing DNA pre-extraction. We showed that the outer layer of lipids known as pollenkitt is a limiting factor for successful PCR on pollen. A simple pre-washing step of pollen suspension was able to eliminate the pollenkitt and enormously affect the PCR results. Additionally, our pollenkitt study helped us develop a simple and effective pollination method using wetted onion pollen grains. Classical manual pollination usually is conducted by intact pollen without wetting. Most existing methods of the editing system delivery into pollen are carried out in a wet medium with consequent drying before pollination, which adversely affects the viability of pollen. The optimal medium for wet pollination was 12% sucrose water solution. Our method of using wetted pollen grains for pollination might be very beneficial for pollen genetic manipulation.

SUBMITTER: Mardini M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9955844 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Hidden Pitfalls of Using Onion Pollen in Molecular Research.

Mardini Majd M Ermolaev Aleksey A Khrustaleva Ludmila L

Current issues in molecular biology 20230129 2

There is little information on the use of pollen in molecular research, despite the increased interest in genome editing by pollen-mediated transformation. This paper presents an essential toolbox of technical procedures and observations for molecular studies on onion (<i>Allium cepa</i> L.) pollen. PCR is a useful tool as an express method to evaluate editing results before pollination. A direct PCR protocol for pollen suspension has been adapted without needing DNA pre-extraction. We showed th ...[more]

PMID: 36826015

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe involvement of patients in research better aligns evidence generation to the gaps that patients themselves face when making decisions about health care. However, obtaining patients' perspectives is challenging. Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk) has gained popularity over the past decade as a crowdsourcing platform to reach large numbers of individuals to perform tasks for a small reward for the respondent, at small cost to the investigator. The appropriateness of such crowdsourcing methods in medical research has yet to be clarified.ObjectiveThe goals of this study were to (1) understand how those on MTurk who screen positive for back pain prioritize research topics compared with those who screen negative for back pain, and (2) determine the qualitative differences in open-ended comments between groups.MethodsWe conducted cross-sectional surveys on MTurk to assess participants' back pain and allow them to prioritize research topics. We paid respondents US $0.10 to complete the 24-point Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) to categorize participants as those "with back pain" and those "without back pain," then offered both those with (RMDQ score ≥7) and those without back pain (RMDQ <7) an opportunity to rank their top 5 (of 18) research topics for an additional US $0.75. We compared demographic information and research priorities between the 2 groups and performed qualitative analyses on free-text commentary that participants provided.ResultsWe conducted 2 screening waves. We first screened 2189 individuals for back pain over 33 days and invited 480 (21.93%) who screened positive to complete the prioritization, of whom 350 (72.9% of eligible) did. We later screened 664 individuals over 7 days and invited 474 (71.4%) without back pain to complete the prioritization, of whom 397 (83.7% of eligible) did. Those with back pain who prioritized were comparable with those without in terms of age, education, marital status, and employment. The group with back pain had a higher proportion of women (234, 67.2% vs 229, 57.8%, P=.02). The groups' rank lists of research priorities were highly correlated: Spearman correlation coefficient was .88 when considering topics ranked in the top 5. The 2 groups agreed on 4 of the top 5 and 9 of the top 10 research priorities.ConclusionsCrowdsourcing platforms such as MTurk support efforts to efficiently reach large groups of individuals to obtain input on research activities. In the context of back pain, a prevalent and easily understood condition, the rank list of those with back pain was highly correlated with that of those without back pain. However, subtle differences in the content and quality of free-text comments suggest supplemental efforts may be needed to augment the reach of crowdsourcing in obtaining perspectives from patients, especially from specific populations.

Dataset Information

Hidden Pitfalls of Using Onion Pollen in Molecular Research.

Publications

Hidden Pitfalls of Using Onion Pollen in Molecular Research.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets