U6 or H1 - Which promoter is better?

Since we provide both constitutive and tetracycline-inducible versions of both U6 and H1 shRNA promoters, we often get questions regarding which to choose or which is "better." In fact, our data with both promoters indicates they function equally well, so it is difficult to provide a clear-cut answer. We use the U6 promoter primarily for shRNA expression libraries as this is generally thought to be a stronger promoter in most cells. We have not systematically tested this in-house, but it is consistent with our findings where U6-driven constructs provide knockdown in a wide range of cell lines. However, some of our clients have specifically requested H1 constructs because U6 constructs appeared detrimental to the growth of some cell lines, possibly because expression levels are too high. The particular concern mainly seems to be with using U6 in neuronal cells. Just to emphasize, we have not seen this in our research. Conversely, we have not had problems with H1-driven shRNA constructs. In a wide range of cells, it seems to function as well as U6.

Overall, we don't have a strong recommendation regarding the use of either promoter. It may be that one or the other is better in certain cells or under certain situations. However, in over 50 cell lines that we have worked with, we haven't seen a clear distinction. We do suggest the researcher try both in their cell systems to check first-hand if one is preferable over the other.

We would be interested to hear from anyone who has had experience with U6 and H1 promoters and what their results were. Comments can be posted in the form below.


Leave a comment

Comments will be approved before showing up.


Also in Cellecta Blog & News

Core Population of Cancer Stem Cells Mediates Therapeutic Resistance in Tumors

Researchers at MD Anderson Cancer Center recently used a Cellecta CloneTracker Barcode Library to label patient-derived xenograft (PDX) cells and establish a stable population of aggressive tumorigenic cells with a specific set of barcodes. With this population of barcoded tumorigenic clones, the investigators...
Read More
DriverMap™ Targeted RNA Sequencing of Blood Finds Gene Signatures Linked to Labor

A recent article demonstrates the unique suitability of the DriverMap Expression Profiling Assay for blood biomarker analysis. In Scientific Reports, Tarca, et al. reported that DriverMap Targeted RNA sequencing identified more potential biomarkers associated with spontaneous labor than either standard Illumina...
Read More
Cellecta Scribe™ Vectors Enable RNA-Seq Analysis of Pooled CRISPR and RNAi Screens

Earlier this year, 3 separate studies (Adamson, et al., Datlinger, et al., and Dixit, et al.) demonstrated an approach to combine pooled CRISPR genetic screening with RNA expression profiling at the single-cell level. Integrating these two approaches enables knockout-specific expression data to be generated for...
Read More