Learn about the flu shot, COVID-19 vaccine, and our masking policy »
New to MyHealth?
Manage Your Care From Anywhere.
Access your health information from any device with MyHealth. You can message your clinic, view lab results, schedule an appointment, and pay your bill.
ALREADY HAVE AN ACCESS CODE?
DON'T HAVE AN ACCESS CODE?
NEED MORE DETAILS?
MyHealth for Mobile
Get the iPhone MyHealth app »
Get the Android MyHealth app »
Abstract
Recent advances in SHAPE technology have converted the classic primer extension method to next-generation sequencing platforms, allowing transcriptome-level analysis of RNA secondary structure. In particular, icSHAPE and SHAPE-MaP, using NAI-N3 and 1M7 reagents, respectively, are methods that claim to measure in vivo structure with high-throughput sequencing. However, these compounds have not been compared on an unbiased, raw-signal level. Here, we directly compare several in vivo SHAPE acylation reagents using the simple primer extension assay. We conclude that while multiple SHAPE technologies are effective at measuring purified RNAs in vitro, acylimidazole reagents NAI and NAI-N3 give markedly greater signals with lower background than 1M7 for in vivo measurement of the RNA structurome.
View details for DOI 10.1261/rna.058784.116
View details for PubMedID 27879433