[an error occurred while processing this directive]

Hereditas(Beijing) ›› 2021, Vol. 43 ›› Issue (4): 362-374.doi: 10.16288/j.yczz.21-016

• Technique and Method • Previous Articles     Next Articles

Optimization of CUT&Tag product recovery and library construction method

Ye Wei1,2, Ke Li2, Daru Lu1(), Huaxing Zhu2,*()   

  1. 1. Statde Key Laboratory of Genetic Engineering School of Life Science, Fudan University, Shanghai 200438, China
    2. Novoprotein Scientific Inc., Wujiang 215200, China
  • Received:2021-01-15 Revised:2021-03-04 Online:2021-04-20 Published:2021-04-20
  • Contact: Lu Daru,Zhu Huaxing E-mail:drlu@fudan.edu.cn;zhuhuaxing@novoprotein.com.cn
  • Supported by:
    Supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China No(81372706);Shanghai Science and Technology Innovation Action Plan No(17JC1400902)

Abstract:

The emerging cleavage under target and tagment (CUT&Tag) technology uses Tn5 transposase to cleavage near the DNA binding site of target protein and study the generated DNA fragments by the next-generation sequencing. It can quickly identify protein-DNA interactions, which greatly simplifies the experimental process of ChIP-Seq. After CUT&Tag tagment reaction, DNA recovery or other post-processing is required to perform library construction PCR. Different recovery methods have significant impact respectively. By establishing Streptavidin beads recovery CUT&Tag(srCUT&Tag), we can quickly and conveniently complete the product recovery of CUT&Tag. We carried out CUT&Tag assay of H3K4me3, RNA Polymerase II (RNA polymerase II, RNAPII), transcription factor CTCF and HMGA1 in K562 cells with different recovery methods, including ethanol precipitation, fragment separation magnetic beads (SPRI) Magnetic bead recovery, direct PCR method, as well as our srCUT&Tag recovery method. The results show that among the CUT&Tag results of four different targets, the SPRI magnetic bead recovery and our srCUT&Tag methods have higher recovery efficiency than the direct PCR method and ethanol precipitation method. All CUT&Tag results showed that the recovery of SPRI magnetic beads would lose most of the product fragments less than 150 bp. In the recovery of CTCF and HMGA1, direct PCR lost most of the fragments larger than 300 bp and has significant difference from result of other recovery method. This enables srCUT&Tag to provide more real and higher-resolution information than other recovery method. In summary, the newly established srCUT&Tag recovery method can improve the efficiency of CUT&Tag library construction and obtain better data quality compared with the existing CUT&Tag product recovery method, providing a better technical choice for epigenetics research.

Key words: CUT&Tag;, DNA recovery method, H3K4me3, RNAPII, CTCF, HMGA1