发布: 2019年09月05日第9卷第17期 DOI: 10.21769/BioProtoc.3360 浏览次数: 7658
评审: Gal HaimovichVarpu MarjomakiAnca Flavia Savulescu
Abstract
In situ hybridization methods are routinely employed to detect nucleic acid sequences, allowing to localize gene expression or to study chromosomal organization in their native context. These methods rely on the pairwise binding of a labeled probe to the target endogenous nucleic acid sequence–the hybridization step, followed by detection of annealed sequences by means of fluorescent or colorimetric reactions. Successful hybridization requires permeabilization of tissues, followed by denaturation of nucleic acids strands, which is usually carried out in a formamide-based buffer and at high temperatures. Such reaction conditions, besides posing a health hazard (both concerning manipulation and waste disposal), can be excessively harsh for the delicate tissues of some species or developmental stages. We detail here an alternative method for in situ hybridization, where the toxic formamide is replaced with a urea solution. This substitution improved both tissues preservation and signal-to-noise detection, in several animal species. The protocol described here, originally developed for the hydrozoan jellyfish Clytia hemisphaerica, provides guidelines for adapting formamide-based traditional protocols to the urea variant. Urea-based protocols have already been successfully applied to diverse invertebrate and vertebrate species, showing the ease of such a modification, and providing the scientific community with a promising, safer and versatile tool.
Keywords: mRNA in situ hybridization (RNA原位杂交)Background
The pairwise complementary binding of single strand nucleic acid sequences inspired the development of a powerful technique, in situ hybridization, which allows researchers to visualize the location of DNA or RNA strands within their cellular and tissue contexts (Pardue and Gall, 1969). Numerous variants have since been developed, differing for the labeling of the exogenous complementary probes (e.g., radioactive or hapten-based), in the type of samples (e.g., for whole embryos or tissue sections) and in the detection method (e.g., fluorescent or colorimetric signals).
Precise annealing of probes depends on the accessibility of the target sequences, achieved through appropriate permeabilization of tissues and cell membranes (which allows penetration of reagents), and denaturation of nucleic acid strands (which exposes the complementary target sequences). Achieving adequate sensitivity of detection, specificity of annealing, and preservation of sample morphology often requires a time-consuming optimization of reaction conditions. Efficient denaturation and annealing of nucleic acids strands are usually obtained by means of elevated temperatures and the addition of a denaturing reagent in the hybridization buffer.
Reaction temperatures should ideally be adapted to the base composition of the sequences of interest: hybridization temperatures are about 25 °C below denaturation temperatures (Tm; Marmur and Doty, 1961). 50-70% formamide is usually employed as the denaturing reagent, this choice remaining largely unchallenged since the ‘80s–with few exceptions, such as the smFISH (single-molecule Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization) approach where 10-15% formamide is used (Haimovich and Gerst, 2018).
Elevated temperatures increase evaporation of the hybridization buffer, compounding the health risk already posed by formamide, an irritating, embryotoxic and teratogenic solvent (Gleich, 1974; Stula and Krauss, 1977; Merkle and Zeller, 1980; Kennedy and Short, 1986; Fail et al., 1998; George et al., 2000 and 2002; see also Sinigaglia et al., 2018 for further information). Hybridizing samples and waste need to be appropriately handled (CICAD 31), thus limiting the application of standard formamide-based protocols in sensitive contexts, such as pregnancy or in classrooms.
In the early years, a diversity of solvents was found to effectively destabilize nucleic acid strands, with urea being particularly efficient (Herskovits, 1963). Indeed, urea and formamide have similar properties, and are employed equivalently in a number of applications, such as fluorescent in situ hybridization on bacteria (Fontenete et al., 2016), protein denaturation, and clearing agents for imaging (reviewed in Azaripour et al., 2016). Urea can effectively replace formamide in Northern and Southern blot experiments, in particular at concentrations in the 2 M-4 M range (Simard et al., 2001). The mechanism of action of urea is still relatively poorly understood. Urea lowers the Tm of DNA of about 2 °C per mole of urea (Hutton, 1977), and is thus slightly less efficient than formamide, which achieves a 2.4-2.9 °C reduction per mole. Urea molecules bind weakly to RNA, disrupting its base-pair interactions and ultimately destabilizing the structure of RNA molecules (Herskovits and Bowen, 1974; Priyakumar et al., 2009; Lambert and Draper, 2012).
Urea, in powder or crystal form, is water soluble, and 8 M stock solutions can be readily prepared at 20 °C. Solutions tend to be viscous (Hutton, 1977), which might explain why high concentrations of urea are less effective (Simard et al., 2001). Such increased viscosity demands care during the hybridization step of the in situ protocol, to ensure that samples are efficiently immersed, and evaporation minimized.
The urea-based protocol presented here has been shown to be more efficient than the standard formamide-based ones in diverse metazoan species and at different developmental stages (see Sinigaglia et al., 2018). Detection sensitivity was improved, allowing visualization of unsuspectedly complex patterns of gene expression (Sinigaglia et al., 2018). This increased sensitivity of detection might be explained by an additional permeabilizing action of urea on tissues (Lim et al., 2009; Huang et al., 2011), likely due to increased osmotic pressure within cells (reviewed in Tainaka et al., 2016). The hyperhydration of tissues might also partially account for the improved morphologies of delicate samples, shown in the original research paper (Sinigaglia et al., 2018).
The protocol detailed here was originally developed for the hydrozoan medusa Clytia hemisphaerica (Quiroga Artigas et al., 2018; Sinigaglia et al., 2018, Leclère et al., 2019). Following those guidelines, urea-alternative protocols have already been developed for a diversity of metazoan species and developmental stages, including priapulid and brachiozoan embryos (Thiel et al., 2017; Sinigaglia et al., 2018), the acoel Hofstenia miamia (L. Ricci, personal communication), the scyphozoan jellyfish Aurelia aurita (M. Manuel and T. Condamine, personal communication), and in the paddlefish (M. Minarik, personal communication). Substituting formamide with urea has also been applied to DNA-FISH on mouse oocytes (Manil-Segalen et al., 2018), further showing the versatility of this approach.
Such versatility stems from the simplicity of the key implementation, the substitution of formamide with an equal volume of urea solution (at a final concentration of 4 M). When adapting previous protocol to novel species or tissues, it is recommended to start by simply switching formamide to urea, leaving the rest of the procedure unchanged. Guidelines for eventual troubleshooting are also provided, offering general recommendations for successful in situ hybridization.
Materials and Reagents

Equipment
Note: No specific brand/model is provided; this equipment is commonly available in laboratories.
Procedure
登录/注册后免费查看全文
文章信息
版权信息
© 2019 The Authors; exclusive licensee Bio-protocol LLC.
如何引用
Sinigaglia, C. (2019). A Widely Applicable Urea-based Fluorescent/Colorimetric mRNA in situ Hybridization Protocol. Bio-protocol 9(17): e3360. DOI: 10.21769/BioProtoc.3360.
分类
发育生物学 > 形态建成 > 器官形成
细胞生物学 > 细胞成像 > 固定组织成像
分子生物学 > RNA > RNA 标记
您对这篇实验方案有问题吗?
在此处发布您的问题,我们将邀请本文作者来回答。同时,我们会将您的问题发布到Bio-protocol Exchange,以便寻求社区成员的帮助。
Share
Bluesky
X
Copy link




