Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
addClaim

Using Cleavage Under Targets and Tagmentation (CUT&Tag) Assay in Mouse Myoblast Research.

Authors: Yuefeng, Li; Xiaofen, Wu; Ping, Hu;

Using Cleavage Under Targets and Tagmentation (CUT&Tag) Assay in Mouse Myoblast Research.

Abstract

This protocol paper aims to provide the new researchers with the full details of using Cleavage Under Targets and Tagmentation (CUT&Tag) to profile the genomic locations of chromatin binding factors, histone marks, and histone variants. CUT&Tag protocols function very well with mouse myoblasts and freshly isolated muscle stem cells (MuSCs). They can easily be applied to many other cell types as long as the cells can be immobilized by Concanavalin-A beads. Compared to CUT&Tag, chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) assays are time-consuming experiments. ChIP assays require the pre-treatment of chromatin before the chromatic material can be used for immunoprecipitation. In cross-linking ChIP (X-ChIP), pre-treatment of chromatin involves cross-linking and sonication to fragment the chromatin. In the case of native ChIP (N-ChIP), the fragmented chromatins are normally achieved by Micrococcal nuclease (MNase) digestion. Both sonication and MNase digestion introduce some bias to the ChIP experiments. CUT&Tag assays can be finished within fewer steps and require much fewer cells compared to ChIPs but provide more unbiased information on transcription factors or histone marks at various genomic locations. CUT&Tag can function with as few as 5,000 cells. Due to its higher sensitivity and lower background signal than ChIPs, researchers can expect to obtain reliable peak data from merely several millions of reads after sequencing.

Related Organizations
Keywords

Mice, Chromatin Immunoprecipitation, Satellite Cells, Skeletal Muscle, Concanavalin A, Animals, Biological Assay, Chromatin

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!