Project description:I. Exp Design 1. Type of experiment: Comparison of native versus cultured RPE cells 2. Experimental factors: Native RPE versus ARPE-19 cells grown on different matrices 3. How many hybridizations in exp: 21 4. If a common reference used for all the hybs: no 5. Quality control steps: three independent arrays for each condition 6. Description: The expression profile of ARPE-19 cells grown on different matrices were compared to morphologically normal native macular RPE cells that were laser capture microdissected from 3 donors. II. Samples used, extract prep, and labeling 1. Biosource: Human donor globes from NDRI (63, 71, 74 years old) and ARPE-19 cells. 2. Manipulations: Human donor globes were cryopreserved, and morphologically normal RPE cells from the macula were laser capture micodissected. ARPE-19 cells were grown on different matrices (plastic, Matrigel, collagen I, collagen IV, laminin, and fibronectin). 3. Extract preparation: Total RNA from cells were extracted with the RNeasy kit (Qiagen) using the manufacturerâs instructions. 4. Labeling protocol: Total RNA from cells was reverse transcribed with 33P-dCTP and 33P-dATP, and second strand cDNA was labeled with 33P-dCTP and 33P-dATP. 5. No external controls were added. III. Hybridization procedures and parameters 1. Sample, array type, batch and serial # used 2. Hybridization protocol: Hybridization was carried out using the manufacturerâs recommendations. Arrays were prehybridized with Microhyb solution containing denatured Cot-1 DNA and poly dA at 42oC for two hours. Hybridization was carried out at 42oC overnight using a hybridization oven set at 8-10 rpm. Arrays were washed twice at 50oC for 20 minutes using 2x SSC, 1%SDS and once at room temperature for 15 minutes using 0.5x SSC, 1%SDS. IV. Measurement data and specifications of data processing 1,2. Arrays were exposed to a phosphorimaging screen for 3 days and scanned at 50 mm resolution with a BioRad FX Pro-Plus phosphorimager. TIFF images from the phosphorimager were exported into ResGen Pathways 3 software for analysis. 3. Data processing: A gene was expressed if its background subtracted intensity was greater than 1.4 fold background. The data were normalized using a simple global scaling procedure, and Cluster/Treeview and Statistical Analysis of Microarrays (SAM version 1.12) programs were used for analysis.

Project description:Description I. Exp Design 1. Type of experiment: Comparison of native versus cultured RPE cells 2. Experimental factors: Native RPE versus ARPE-19 cells grown in different culture conditions 3. How many hybridizations in exp: 20 4. If a common reference used for all the hybs: no 5. Quality control steps: three independent arrays for each condition, and five different donor globes for native RPE 6. Description: The expression profile of ARPE-19 cells grown under different culture conditions were compared to morphologically normal native macular RPE cells that were laser capture microdissected from 5 donors. II. Samples used, extract prep, and labeling 1. Biosource: Human donor globes from NDRI and Sierra Eye and Tissue Bank, and ARPE-19 cells. 2. Manipulations: Human donor globes were cryopreserved, and morphologically normal RPE cells from the macula were laser capture micodissected. ARPE-19 cells were grown on different matrices (subconfluent culture density in presence of serum, confluent culture density in presence of serum, confluent culture density with serum withdrawn medium, differentiated (grown for 2.5 months) in serum, and differentiated (grown for 2.5 months) and then serum withdrawn medium). 3. Extract preparation: Total RNA from cells were extracted with the RNeasy kit (Qiagen) using the manufacturer's instructions. 4. Labeling protocol: Total RNA from cells was reverse transcribed with 33P-dCTP and 33P-dATP, and second strand cDNA was labeled with 33P-dCTP and 33P-dATP. 5. No external controls were added. III. Hybridization procedures and parameters 1. Sample, array type, batch and serial # used 2. Hybridization protocol: Hybridization was carried out using the manufacturer's recommendations. Arrays were prehybridized with Microhyb solution containing denatured Cot-1 DNA and poly dA at 42oC for two hours. Hybridization was carried out at 42oC overnight using a hybridization oven set at 8-10 rpm. Arrays were washed twice at 50oC for 20 minutes using 2x SSC, 1%SDS and once at room temperature for 15 minutes using 0.5x SSC, 1%SDS. IV. Measurement data and specifications of data processing 1,2. Arrays were exposed to a phosphorimaging screen for 3 days and scanned at 50 mm resolution with a BioRad FX Pro-Plus phosphorimager. TIFF images from the phosphorimager were exported into ResGen Pathways 3 software for analysis. 3. Data processing: A gene was expressed if its background subtracted intensity was greater than 1.4 fold background. The data were normalized using a simple global scaling procedure, and Cluster/Treeview and Statistical Analysis of Microarrays (SAM version 1.12) programs were used for analysis.

Project description:Background: Researching the murine epigenome in disease models has been hampered by the lack of an appropriate and cost-effective DNA methylation array. Until recently, investigators have been limited to the relatively expensive and analysis intensive bisulphite sequencing methods. Here, we performed a comprehensive, comparative analysis between the new Mouse Methylation BeadChip (MMB) and reduced representation bisulphite sequencing (RRBS) in two murine models of colorectal carcinogenesis, providing insight into the utility to each platforms in a real world environment. Results: We captured 1.47x106 CpGs by RRBS and 2.64x105 CpGs by MMB, mapping to 13,778 and 13,365 CpG islands, respectively. RRBS captured significantly more CpGs per island (median 41 for RRBS versus 2 for MMB). We found that 64.4% of intra-island CpG methylation variability can be captured by measuring approximately one quarter of CpG island (CGI) CpGs. MMB was more precise in measuring DNA methylation, especially at sites that had low RRBS coverage. This impacted differential methylation analysis, with more statistically significantly differentially methylated CpG sites identified by MMB in all experimental conditions, however the difference was minute when appropriate thresholding for the magnitude of methylation change (0.2 beta value difference) was applied, providing confidence that both techniques can identify similar differential DNA methylation. Gene ontology enrichment analysis of differentially hypermethylated gene promoters identified similar biological processes and pathways by both RRBS and MMB across two murine model systems. Conclusion: MMB is an effective tool for profiling the murine methylome that performs comparably to RRBS, identifying similar differentially methylated pathways. Although MMB captures a similar proportion of CpG islands, it does so with fewer CpGs per island. We show that subsampling informative CpGs from CpG islands is an appropriate strategy to capture whole island variation. Choice of technology is experiment dependent and will be predicated on the underlying biology being probed.

Dataset Information

Bisulphite sequencing of native LNCaP and PrEC DNA [methylation array]

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure