Home › Research › Drug development
A Tandem Oligonucleotide Approach for SNP-Selective RNA Degradation Using Modified Antisense Oligonucleotides
Magner D, Biala E, Lisowiec-Wachnicka J, Kierzek E, Kierzek R.. PloS one, 2015-11-06
Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models
Antisense oligonucleotides have been studied for many years as a tool for gene silencing. One of the most difficult cases of selective RNA silencing involves the alleles of single nucleotide polymorphisms, in which the allele sequence is differentiated by a single nucleotide. A new approach to improve the performance of allele selectivity for antisense oligonucleotides is proposed. It is based on the simultaneous application of two oligonucleotides. One is complementary to the mutated form of the targeted RNA and is able to activate RNase H to cleave the RNA. The other oligonucleotide, which is complementary to the wild type allele of the targeted RNA, is able to inhibit RNase H cleavage. Five types of SNPs, C/G, G/C, G/A, A/G, and C/U, were analyzed within the sequence context of genes associated with neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, ALS (Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis), and Machado-Joseph disease. For most analyzed cases, the application of the tandem approach increased allele-selective RNA degradation 1.5-15 fold relative to the use of a single antisense oligonucleotide. The presented study proves that differentiation between single substitution is highly dependent on the nature of the SNP and surrounding nucleotides. These variables are crucial for determining the proper length of the inhibitor antisense oligonucleotide. In the tandem approach, the comparison of thermodynamic stability of the favorable duplexes WT RNA-inhibitor and Mut RNA-gapmer with the other possible duplexes allows for the evaluation of chances for the allele-selective degradation of RNA. A larger difference in thermodynamic stability between favorable duplexes and those that could possibly form, usually results in the better allele selectivity of RNA degradation.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Magner, D., Biala, E., Lisowiec-Wachnicka, J., Kierzek, E., & Kierzek, R. (2015). A Tandem Oligonucleotide Approach for SNP-Selective RNA Degradation Using Modified Antisense Oligonucleotides. PloS one. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0142139
Vancouver
Magner D, Biala E, Lisowiec-Wachnicka J, Kierzek E, Kierzek R. A Tandem Oligonucleotide Approach for SNP-Selective RNA Degradation Using Modified Antisense Oligonucleotides. PloS one. 2015. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0142139. PMID: 26544037.
BibTeX
@article{magner2015-26544037,
author = {Magner, D. and Biala, E. and Lisowiec-Wachnicka, J. and Kierzek, E. and Kierzek, R.},
title = {{A Tandem Oligonucleotide Approach for SNP-Selective RNA Degradation Using Modified Antisense Oligonucleotides}},
journal = {PloS one},
year = {2015},
doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0142139},
pmid = {26544037},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0142139}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Five types of SNPs, C/G, G/C, G/A, A/G, and C/U, were analyzed within the sequence context of genes associated with neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, ALS (Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis), and Machado-Joseph disease.
- A larger difference in thermodynamic stability between favorable duplexes and those that could possibly form, usually results in the better allele selectivity of RNA degradation.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 40/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 23 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 40 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (PloS one) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2015 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 26544037) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 23 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 23 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 40 out of 100. |
| Total | 40 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.