Archive for the ‘shRNA Validation’ category

shRNA Design Results – How good is your algorithm?

August 3rd, 2011
Share

 

The last blog entry discussed how hairpin structural features affect representation and effectiveness of shRNA sequences in pooled libraries. However, it is clear that the nucleotide sequence is possibly the major factor that determines the efficiency at which a particular siRNA or shRNA knocks down a target.
Despite a large amount of research over the last several years on various features that affect knockdown potential, a priori prediction of most effective siRNA/shRNA sequences continues to be very much “hit and miss.” As anyone familiar with RNAi is aware, there are numerous design algorithms available online from a variety of commercial and academic sources. For example, several publicly available prediction algorithms are listed and described at Protocol Online and on the Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin website.

Cellecta, of course, has also focused a large amount of effort divining the critical parameters to effectively predict shRNA. With a pooled screening, even small improvements in our proportion of effective sequences produces significant differences in screening results. We have been using an approach that assesses a number of parameters related to GC composition and distribution. This approach has been quite effective as the data from a recent set of designed shRNA shows (see below). In this case, we designed 5 shRNA to each of 29 gene targets. For all but one of the targets, at least one shRNA construct generated greater than 70% knockdown of the targeted transcript (measured by qRT-PCR) and, for 23 of the targets there were multiple constructs generating >70% knockdown for each target.

result of new shRNA design on knockdown efficiency

The results of the project shown here were produced using a relatively straightforward approach. Recently, as part of an NIH grant, we have coupled knockdown data and results from phenotypic screens with a self-learning algorithm to produce a more sophisticated analysis that assesses over a hundred characteristics in a tree like process to identify “good” shRNA. This sort of analysis has increased the fraction of effective shRNA (shRNA that knockdown that target by >70%) by about 10%–from about 65%-70% to close to 80%. Access to this design algorithm will soon be available on the Decipher Project website. In the end, the improvement seems to be a result of eliminating the worst performers, rather than improving the prediction of the best shRNA. This indicates that improvements in effective prediction may not lie with identifying which parameters enhance or promote effective RNA inhibition, but rather, in identifying which parameters can potentially disrupt inhibition.

Share

The Importance of shRNA Structural Design for Pooled Libraries

June 23rd, 2011
Share

 
We have done a significant amount of evaluation to identify features of the optimal shRNA structure necessary to ensure our complex libraries maintain and express representative and effective shRNA. Independent from particular targeting sequences, structural variations such as defined mismatches, loop sizes, and stem lengths have significant affect on both the cloning and maintenance of the hairpin-coding insert in the heterogeneous library, as well as subsequent stability of the insert to integrate and stably express in the host cell. To provide comprehensive screening, it is critical to optimize the structure so that the library can maintain a representative copy number of all shRNA sequences with minimal bias through cloning, amplification, packaging, transduction, and selection.

For the initial structural analysis, we made use of an shRNA-testing reporter construct using a destabilized green fluorescent protein (GFP). A description of this reporter system can be found in the Technology section of our website and more details will be available for publication shortly. I would just point out that, by combining this reporter construct with our library screening technology, we were able to analyze the effects of 40 different design variations of 150 different shRNA targeting sequences. Subsequent analysis by qRT-PCR of the best 10 designs showed significant variation as you can see from the data below that shows three examples of 10 variations of shRNA targeting the same region of the p53 gene. In the end, the best structure was a 25-base stem containing a few precise mismatches and a 7-nt loop.
 

p53 knockdown percentage for various shRNA structures

 
One question we often get asked when presenting this optimization strategy is how the miRNA structure compares. In fact, we did not include miRNA variations in this study because we previously found that they anecdotally did not perform as well as shRNA. Cellular processing of miRNA to form the RNA-induced silencing complex requires digestion with both the Drosha and Dicer enzymes. Intuitively, the addition of the extra Drosha processing might be expected to make the effective concentration of the active siRNA form somewhat lower in the cells and also make it less universally effective across different cell lines since it depends on the effective activity of two enzymes instead of just the one. Anecdotally, we did find a lot of variation with miRNA forms that we tested. Published results from a CGAP-sponsored inhibition study of the shRNAmir miRNA variation also found similar results in terms of effectiveness and variation. The study contained a lot of interesting data presented many ways but the finding that particularly stood out what that, across more than 100 genes, only about 37% of expressed shRNAmir produced >75% knockdown in OVCAR-8 cells and just 12% provided 75% knockdown in MCF7 cells (See CGAP Study Figure 1). Hairpin shRNA structures routinely generated much better knockdown rates.
 

Share
UA-4527469-1