Citation: Jiyu Sun, Yueming Wang, Shujun Zhang, Yunhai Ma, Jin Tong, Zhijun Zhang. The mechanism of resistance-reducing/anti-adhesion and its application on biomimetic disc furrow opener[J]. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2020, 17(5): 4657-4677. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2020256
[1] | Akhil Kumar Srivastav, Pankaj Kumar Tiwari, Prashant K Srivastava, Mini Ghosh, Yun Kang . A mathematical model for the impacts of face mask, hospitalization and quarantine on the dynamics of COVID-19 in India: deterministic vs. stochastic. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2021, 18(1): 182-213. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2021010 |
[2] | Rahat Zarin, Usa Wannasingha Humphries, Amir Khan, Aeshah A. Raezah . Computational modeling of fractional COVID-19 model by Haar wavelet collocation Methods with real data. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(6): 11281-11312. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023500 |
[3] | Fang Wang, Lianying Cao, Xiaoji Song . Mathematical modeling of mutated COVID-19 transmission with quarantine, isolation and vaccination. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(8): 8035-8056. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022376 |
[4] | Yangyang Yu, Yuan Liu, Shi Zhao, Daihai He . A simple model to estimate the transmissibility of the Beta, Delta, and Omicron variants of SARS-COV-2 in South Africa. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(10): 10361-10373. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022485 |
[5] | Matthew Hayden, Bryce Morrow, Wesley Yang, Jin Wang . Quantifying the role of airborne transmission in the spread of COVID-19. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(1): 587-612. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023027 |
[6] | Qinghua Liu, Siyu Yuan, Xinsheng Wang . A SEIARQ model combine with Logistic to predict COVID-19 within small-world networks. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(2): 4006-4017. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023187 |
[7] | A. M. Elaiw, Raghad S. Alsulami, A. D. Hobiny . Global dynamics of IAV/SARS-CoV-2 coinfection model with eclipse phase and antibody immunity. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(2): 3873-3917. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023182 |
[8] | Zita Abreu, Guillaume Cantin, Cristiana J. Silva . Analysis of a COVID-19 compartmental model: a mathematical and computational approach. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2021, 18(6): 7979-7998. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2021396 |
[9] | Sarafa A. Iyaniwura, Rabiu Musa, Jude D. Kong . A generalized distributed delay model of COVID-19: An endemic model with immunity waning. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(3): 5379-5412. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023249 |
[10] | Hamdy M. Youssef, Najat A. Alghamdi, Magdy A. Ezzat, Alaa A. El-Bary, Ahmed M. Shawky . A new dynamical modeling SEIR with global analysis applied to the real data of spreading COVID-19 in Saudi Arabia. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2020, 17(6): 7018-7044. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2020362 |
Nucleosomes contain histone octamers around which DNA is wrapped [1]. Neighboring nucleosomes are separated by unwrapped linker DNA. Generally, a nucleosome's position with respect to the gene promoter plays an important role in yeast gene expression [2,3,4,5]. Nucleosome arrangement is also specific to an organism [6].
Trichostatin A (TSA) is a histone deacetylase inhibitor that promotes histone acetylation, which induces hyperacetylation of histones [7]. TSA influences nucleosome structure via histone acetylation. In addition, TSA influences nucleosome positions in the filamentous ascomycete Aspergillus fumigatus [8]. The acetylation and deacetylation of histones play an important role in the regulation of transcription [9]. Our previous study showed that TSA influences gene expression and nucleosome position in the archiascomycete Saitoella complicata [10]. Our study identified a total of 154 genes upregulated in a concentration-dependent manner in response to TSA treatment, whereas 131 genes were identified to be increasingly downregulated with increasing TSA concentration [10]. Most of nucleosome positions did not change after TSA treatment [10]. The anamorphic and saprobic budding yeast S. complicata, which is classified under Taphrinomycotina, represents the earliest ascomycetous lineage [11,12]. The fission yeast Schizosaccharomyces is also classified under Taphrinomycotina [12].
In the previous study, we compared the nucleosome positions in 0 and 3 μg/mL TSA [10]. Thus, it was uncertain whether nucleosome position changed in a TSA concentration-dependent manner or not. If nucleosome position did not change in a TSA concentration-dependent manner, at which concentration did the position change? In this study, we investigated whether genes that are known to be regulated in response to TSA treatment also exhibit changes in nucleosome formation at the gene promoters in a TSA concentration-dependent manner.
In addition, the ascomycetous yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae spheroplast was reported to enlarge using zymolyase [13,14]. Enlarged spheroplast cells contain multiple nuclei [13]. It was uncertain how the multiple nuclei were maintained. Do nucleosome positions differ in between single nucleus and multiple nuclei? In bacterial enlarged spheroplasts, DNA was replicated and stress response genes were upregulated [15]. We found that S. complicata cells enlarge when grown in minimal SD broth (Takara, Japan) after zymolyase treatment. Thus, we measured the extent of nucleosome formation at the gene promoters in enlarged S. complicatacells and compared them with nucleosome formation levels in TSA-treated cells.
Saitoella complicata NBRC 10748 (= JCM 7358, = IAM 12963; type strain) was cultivated in YM broth (yeast extract, 3 g/L; malt extract, 3 g/L; peptone, 5 g/L; dextrose, 10 g/L) at 25 ℃ for 24 h as a control sample. Afterwards, TSA (1, 2, and 3 μg/mL) was added to the S. complicata culture; cells were subsequently incubated at 25 ℃ for 24 h. For the enlarged spheroplast generation, S. complicata was grown in minimal SD broth (Takara, Japan) at 25 ℃ for 30 h. Harvested cells were centrifuged for 5 min at 3000 rpm and suspended in buffer containing 0.8 M sorbitol and 25 mM phosphate at 25 ℃ for 20 min. Zymolyase 20T (Seikagaku corporation, Japan) was added to the cell suspension; the cells were incubated at 37 ℃ for 60 min. S. complicata cells were harvested, centrifuged for 5 min at 3000 rpm, and cultured in minimal SD broth (adjusted to pH 7.5) at 25 ℃ for 4-7 days.
Equal volumes of S. complicata culture and 2% formaldehyde were mixed and incubated for 10 min. Next, 5 mL of 1.25 M glycine was added to the resulting solution. S. complicata cells were collected, washed with 50 mM Tris-EDTA buffer (pH 8), and then suspended in zymolyase buffer (1 M sorbitol, 10 mM DTT, and 50 mM Tris-HCl, pH 8.0). Zymolyase (Seikagaku corporation, Japan) (50 U) was added to the cell suspension, and the resulting solution was incubated at 37 ℃ for 1 h. Cells were collected by centrifugation and suspended in 2.5 mL of zymolyase buffer, after which 1 U of MNase (Takara, Japan) was added. The resulting digestion solution was incubated at 37 ℃ for 30 min, and the reaction was stopped by adding sodium dodecyl sulfate to a final concentration of 1% and EDTA to a final concentration of 10 mM. Proteinase K solution (5 μL) was added to the solution, and the mixture was incubated at 56 ℃ for 1 h. DNA was phenol/chloroform-extracted, ethanol-precipitated, and treated with RNase (Nippon Gene, Japan). Nucleosomal DNA fragments were isolated via electrophoresis on 2% agarose gel. The mononucleosomal DNA band was excised and purified using the QIAquick Gel Extraction Kit (Qiagen, Germany).
In this study, we selected six nucleosome positions in the gene promoters (300 nucleotides upstream of the translational start site) of the following four locus tags: G7K_2351-t1, G7K_2810-t1, G7K_3456-t1, and G7K_5676-t1. G7K_2351-t1 and G7K_2810-t1 encode homologs to 19S proteasome regulatory subunit Rpn3 and 20S proteasome-component α6 subunit Pre5, respectively, and are known to be increasingly downregulated upon treatment with increasing concentrations of TSA [10]. G7K_3456-t1 encodes a homolog to anaphase promoting complex subunit Apc11, whereas the G7K_5676-t1 gene is not homologous to any Schizosaccharomyces pombe protein. G7K_3456-t1 and G7K_5676-t1 are genes that are both upregulated in response to TSA treatment in a concentration-dependent manner [10]. Table 1 and Supplementary Figure 1 list the primers used in this study. We selected the position 5676_0 as an internal control, which showed the same nucleosome formation level between the cells treated with 0 μg/mL and 3 μg/mL TSA (Supplementary Figure 1) [10]. PCR was performed using the following cycling conditions: 1 cycle of 95 ℃ for 600 s and 45 cycles of denaturation (95 ℃ for 10 s), annealing (55 ℃ for 10 s), and extension (72 ℃ for 15 s). After the extension, a melting curve cycle was performed from 60 ℃ to 95 ℃ at 0.1 ℃/s to confirm the absence of non-specific bands. The quantification cycle (Cq) values were obtained using LightCycler Nano Software (Roche, Basel). We calculated the nucleosome formation level using the following formula: 2(Cq value at the position 5676_0 − Cq value at each position).
Target position | Forward (5' to 3') | Reverse (5' to 3') | Product size (bp) |
2351 | ggcaggcagtccaatagagt | gagatcaagaggggttcacg | 103 |
2810_1 | gcagtttaacgacgagaaggtt | cgcctcggtaataggtattcat | 110 |
2810_2 | ggacaagctcctggtcttcc | cccttcaaagcacctcaatc | 110 |
3456 | gagaagctaaccgagcaacttt | tggccaattgaacaaacgat | 109 |
5676_1 | tcagcgattccccaagttat | gatgagggcgtcgagttc | 110 |
5676_2 | gttcacgaggacagatcagg | ggagttcgaaccatctttataacttg | 109 |
5676_0 (control) | gagcgggatgtctttgtgat | ctaggcagtcactgggatcg | 99 |
We performed analysis of variance (ANOVA) and a pairwise t test with Holm's adjustment using R statistical software (http://www.r-project.org/).
The typical diameter of a Saitoella complicata cell is approximately 5 μm, whereas that of an enlarged spheroplast cultured in minimal SD broth after zymolyase treatment was measured to be approximately 15 μm (Figure 1).
ANOVA results showed that nucleosome formation levels were not significantly (p > 0.05) different at position 2351 but significantly different (p < 0.05) at the five other positions, namely, 2810_1, 2810_2, 3456, 5676_1, and 5676_2 (Figure 2).
Among the five positions, analysis using pairwise ttest with Holm's adjustment showed no significant differences in terms of the degree of nucleosome formation at position 5676_1 (p > 0.05) between normal budding cells (0 μg/mL TSA) and enlarged cells (culture in minimal SD broth). However, significant differences (p < 0.05) in nucleosome formation levels were observed in the four other positions (2810_1, 2810_2, 3456, and 5676_2) (Figure 2). In addition, no significant differences in nucleosome formation were observed between enlarged cells and TSA-treated cells (2 and 3 μg/mL) at positions 2810_1, 2810_2, and 5676_2 (Figure 2). The above results strongly suggest that TSA-treatment and culture in minimal SD broth after zymolyase treatment exert similar effects on nucleosome formation at positions 2810_1, 2810_2, and 5676_2. Further research is necessary to confirm whether enlarged cells exhibit different histone acetylation patterns. Changes in nucleosome formation at the gene promoters can represent a stress response mechanism in cells subjected to spheroplast (zymolyase treatment) and TSA treatment. On the other hand, the degree of nucleosome formation at position 5676_1 was observed to be significantly different between enlarged cells and TSA-treated cells (Figure 2). However, nucleosome formation at this position was not significantly different between normal budding cells and enlarged cells. Thus, the observed nucleosome formation at position 5676_1 is specific to TSA-treated cells.
Changes in the degree of nucleosome formation appeared to occur in a TSA concentration-dependent manner at positions 3456 (decreasing) and 5676_1 (increasing) (Figure 2). However, no significant differences in nucleosome formation levels were observed between cells treated with 1 and 2 μg/mL TSA and between cells treated with 2 and 3 μg/mL TSA (Figure 2).
Nucleosome formation at position 5676_1 increased after TSA-treatment (Figure 2). On the other hand, nucleosome formation levels decreased after TSA-treatment at the neighboring position 5676_2 (Figure 2), which strongly suggests that a histone octamer can move from position 5676_2 to 5676_1. Based on the calculated nucleosome formation levels and p values, cells treated with 1 μg/mL TSA evidently showed nucleosome movement (Figure 2). Interestingly, changes in nucleosome position did not occur in enlarged cells, since nucleosome formation was observed only at position 5676_2 (Figure 2).
In positions 2810_1 and 2810_2 (neighboring regions), nucleosome formation levels decreased as a result of TSA-treatment (Figure 2). This suggests that two histone octamers may be absent at these two positions. The observed nucleosome depletion at position 2810_2 is inconsistent with the results of the previous study (Supplementary Figure 1) and suggests that the nucleosome occupancy at this position is unstable.
Except for position 2351, nucleosome formation levels in all other positions were significantly different between cells treated with 0 and 1 μg/mL TSA. However, no significant differences were observed between cells treated with 2 and 3 μg/mL TSA. The above results indicate that changes in the nucleosome formation occurred mainly in cells treated with 1 μg/mL TSA but not in cells treated with 2 and 3 μg/mL TSA.
We demonstrated that although TSA-treatment and zymolyase-treatment are completely different stimulus, TSA-treated cells and enlarged spheroplasts ofSaitoella complicata showed similar changes in nucleosome formation in five out of six gene promoter positions examined in the present study. These results strongly suggest that changes in nucleosome formation could serve as a stress response mechanism of S. complicata cells. Different stressors (TSA and zymolyase treatments) induce similar changes in the patterns of nucleosome formation in gene promoters in S. complicata.
This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI grant no. 25440188 and a grant from The Cannon Foundation.
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this paper.
[1] | D. P. Darmora, K. P. Pandey, Evaluation of performance of furrow openers of combined seed and fertiliser drills, Soil Till. Res., 34 (1995), 127-139. |
[2] | C. Sawant, A. Kumar, I. Mani, J. K. Singh, Soil bin studies on the selection of furrow opener for conservation agriculture, J. Soil Water Conserv., 15 (2016), 107-112. |
[3] | P. Y. Guo, M. A. Choudhary, Preliminary studies of a modified slot opener for direct drilling seeds, New Zeal. J. Exp. Agric., 1 (1985), 85-95. |
[4] | A. Bahri, R. K. Bansal, Evaluation of different combination of furrow openers and press wheels for no till seeding, Homme. Terre. Eaux., 22 (1992), 55-66. |
[5] | A. Ozmerzi, Seed distribution performance of furrow openers used on drill machines, AMA-Agr. Mech. Asia AF., 17 (1986), 32-34. |
[6] | F. Ahmad, D. Weimin, D. Qishuo, M. Hussain, K. Jabran, Forces and straw cutting performance of double disc furrow opener in no-till paddy soil, PLoS One, 10 (2015), e0119648. |
[7] | T. Vamerali, M. Bertocco, L. Sartori, Effects of a new wide-sweep opener for no-till planter on seed zone properties and root establishment in maize (Zea mays, L.): A comparison with double-disk opener, Soil Till. Res., 89 (2006), 196-209. |
[8] | A. A. Tagar, C. Ji, J. Adamowski, J. Malard, C. S. Qi, Q. S. Ding, N. A. Abbasi, Finite element simulation of soil failure patterns under soil bin and fieldtesting conditions, Soil Till. Res., 145 (2015), 157-170. |
[9] | H. A. Nidal, C. R. Randall, A nonlinear 3D finite element analysis of the soil forces acting on a disk plow, Soil Till. Res., 74 (2003), 115-124. |
[10] | H. Bentaher, A. Ibrahmi, E. Hamza, M. Hbaieb, G. Kantchev, A. Maalej, W. Arnold, Finite element simulation of moldboard-soil interaction, Soil Till. Res., 134 (2013), 11-16. |
[11] | B. A. Collins, D. B. Fowler, Effect of soil characteristics, seeding depth, operating speed, and opener design on draft force during direct seeding, Soil Till. Res., 39 (1996), 199-211. |
[12] | S. Q. Zhang, X. Ma, C. C. Zuo, C. L. Ma, H. W. Wang, Y. J. Sun, Forces acting on disk colter and computer simulation, Trans. CSAE., 11 (1995), 52-56. |
[13] | S. Q. Zhang, C. C. Zuo, C. L. Ma, The study on the model of disc coulter force, Trans. CSAM, 29 (1998), 71-75. |
[14] | J. L. Jiang, L. N. Gong, M. F. Wang, Study on the working performance of the no-tillage planter unit, Trans. CSAE, 16 (2000), 64-66. |
[15] | E. M. Tice, J. G. Hendricks, Disc coulter forces: evaluation of mathematical models, Trans. ASAE, 34 (1991), 2291-2298. |
[16] | J. Tong, B. Z. Moayad, Y. H. Ma, J. Y. Sun, D. H. Chen, H. L. Jia, L. Q. Ren, Effects of biomimetic surface designs on furrow opener performance, J. Bionic. Eng., 6 (2009), 280-289. |
[17] | L.Q. Ren, Progress in the bionic study on anti-adhesion and resistance-reducing of terrain machines, Sci. China Ser. E., 52 (2009), 273-284. |
[18] | L. Q. Ren, D. X. Chen, J. G. Hu, Preliminary analysis on the rules of decreasing viscosity and removing rabbits of soil animals, J. Agr. Eng., 6 (1993), 15-20. |
[19] | B. C. Cheng, L. Q. Ren, X. B. Xu, Bionic study on soil adhesion (two) A preliminary study on the anti-viscosity and desorption of the body surface of typical soil animals, J. Agr. Eng., 6 (1990), 2-6. |
[20] | L. Q. Ren, Experimental Design and Optimization, Science Press, (2009). |
[21] | D. W. Bechert, M. Bruse, W. Hage, J. G. T. van der Hoeven, G. Hoppe, Experimentson drag reducing surfaces and their optimization with an adjustable geometry, J. Fluid Mech., 338 (1997), 59-87. |
[22] | J. B. Zhang, J. Tong, Y. H. Ma, Abrasive wear characteristics of subsoiler tines with bionic rib structure surface, Jilin Daxue Xuebao (Gongxueban),45 (2015), 174-180. |
[23] | Z. J. Zhang, H. L. Jia, J. Y. Sun, Abrasive wear characteristics of subsoiler tines with bionic rib structure surface, Adv. Mech. Eng., 7 (2015), 1-11. |
[24] | V. Zorba, E. Stratakis, M. Barberoglou, E. Spanakis, C. Fotakis, Biomimetic artificial surfaces quantitatively reproduce the water repellency of a lotus leaf, Adv. Mater., 20 (2008), 4049-4054. |
[25] | H. Lee, B. P. Lee, P. B. Messersmith, A reversible wet/dry adhesive inspired by mussels and geckos, Nature, 448(2007), 338-341. |
[26] | X. Li, T. Chen, Enhancement and suppression effects of a nanopatterned surface on bacterial adhesion, Phys. Rev. E, 93(2016), 52419. |
[27] | D. C. Zeng, Mechanical Soil Dynamics, Beijing Science and Technology Press, (1995). |
[28] | L. D. Bevel, W. H. Gardner, W. R. Gardner, Soil Physics, John Wiley & Sons., (1956). |
[29] | P. G. Huray, Maxwell's Equations, Wiley-IEEE Press, (2009). |
[30] | D. H. Qian, J. X. Zhang, A summary of study of adhesion and friction between soil and metals, Trans. CSAM, 1 (1984), 71-80. |
[31] | D. H. Qian, A summary of study of adhesion and friction between soil and metals, Trans. CSAM, 2 (1965), 47-52. |
[32] | L. Q. Ren, Soil Adhesion Mechanics, China Machine Press, (2011). |
[33] | R. E. Baier, E. G. Shafrin, W. A. Zisman, Adhesion: mechanisms that assist or impede it, Science, 162 (1968), 1360-1368. |
[34] | R. A. Fisher, Further note on the capillary forces in an ideal soil, J. Agr. Sci., 18 (1928), 406-410. |
[35] | M. L. Nichols, The sliding of metal over soil, Agric. Eng., 6 (1925), 80-84. |
[36] | W. B. Haines, Studies in the physical properties of soils: I. Mechanical properties concerned in cultivation, J. Agr. Sci., 15 (1925), 178-200. |
[37] | S. Q. Deng, L. Q. Ren, Y. Liu, Z. W. Han, Tangent resistance of soil on moldboard and the mechanism of resistance reduction of bionic moldboard, J. Bionic Eng., 2 (2005), 33-46. |
[38] | L. Q. Ren, J. Tong, J. Q. Li, B. C. Chen, Soil adhesion and biomimetics of soil-engaging components: a review, J. Agr. Eng. Res., 79 (2001), 239-263. |
[39] | W. R. Gill, C. E. Vandenberg, Soil Dynamics in Tillage and Traction, Chinese Agricultural Machinery Press, (1983). |
[40] | B. A. Lewis, Manual for LS-DYNA Soil Material Model 147, Federal Highway Administration, (2004). |
[41] | I. Ahmadi, Development and assessment of a draft force calculator for disk plow using the laws of classical mechanics, Soil Till. Res.,163 (2016), 32-40. |
[42] | A. Armin, R. Fotouhin, W. Szyszkowski, On the FE modeling of soil-blade interaction in tillage operations, Finite Elem. Anal. Des., 92 (2014), 1-11. |
[43] | N. Eu-Gene, D. K. Aspinwall, Modeling of hard part machining, J. Mater. Process. Tech., 127 (2002), 222-229. |
[44] | J. M. Huang, J. T. Black, An evaluation of chip separation criteria for the fem simulation of machining, J. Manuf. Sci. Eng., 118 (1996), 461-469. |
[45] | A. P. Markopoulos, Finite Element Method in Machining Process, Springer, (2013). |
[46] | A. Z. Shmulevich, D. Rubinstein, Interaction between soil and a wide cutting blade using the discrete element method, Soil Till. Res., 97 (2007), 37-50. |
[47] | D. L. Jing, S. K. Yi, Electroosmotic flow in tree-like branching microchannel network, Fractals, 27 (2019), 1950095. |
[48] | D. L. Jing, J. Song, Y. Sui, Hydraulic and thermal performances of laminar flow in fractal treelike branching microchannel network with wall velocity slip, Fractals, 28 (2020), 2050022. |
[49] | X. Jia, Unsmooth cuticles of soil animals and theoretical analysis of their hydrophobicity and anti-soil-adhesion mechanism, J. Colloid Inter. Sci., 295 (2006), 490-494. |
[50] | E. R. Fountaine, Investigations into the mechanism of soil adhesion, J. Soil Sci., 5 (1954), 251-263. |
[51] | F. M. Fowkes, Additivity of intermolecular forces at interfaces. I determination of the contribution to surface and interfacial tensions of dispersion forces in various liquids, J. Phys. C, 67 (1963), 2538-2541. |
[52] | I. Lifshitz, The kinetics of precipitation from supersaturated solid solutions, J. Phys. Chem. Solid, 19 (1961), 35-50 |
[53] | J. Bachmann, A. Ellies, K.H. Hartgea, Development and application of a new sessile drop contact angle method to assess soil water repellency, J. Hydrol., 231-232 (2000), 66-75. |
1. | Karan Thakkar, Julia Regazzini Spinardi, Jingyan Yang, Moe H. Kyaw, Egemen Ozbilgili, Carlos Fernando Mendoza, Helen May Lin Oh, Impact of vaccination and non-pharmacological interventions on COVID-19: a review of simulation modeling studies in Asia, 2023, 11, 2296-2565, 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1252719 |
Target position | Forward (5' to 3') | Reverse (5' to 3') | Product size (bp) |
2351 | ggcaggcagtccaatagagt | gagatcaagaggggttcacg | 103 |
2810_1 | gcagtttaacgacgagaaggtt | cgcctcggtaataggtattcat | 110 |
2810_2 | ggacaagctcctggtcttcc | cccttcaaagcacctcaatc | 110 |
3456 | gagaagctaaccgagcaacttt | tggccaattgaacaaacgat | 109 |
5676_1 | tcagcgattccccaagttat | gatgagggcgtcgagttc | 110 |
5676_2 | gttcacgaggacagatcagg | ggagttcgaaccatctttataacttg | 109 |
5676_0 (control) | gagcgggatgtctttgtgat | ctaggcagtcactgggatcg | 99 |
Target position | Forward (5' to 3') | Reverse (5' to 3') | Product size (bp) |
2351 | ggcaggcagtccaatagagt | gagatcaagaggggttcacg | 103 |
2810_1 | gcagtttaacgacgagaaggtt | cgcctcggtaataggtattcat | 110 |
2810_2 | ggacaagctcctggtcttcc | cccttcaaagcacctcaatc | 110 |
3456 | gagaagctaaccgagcaacttt | tggccaattgaacaaacgat | 109 |
5676_1 | tcagcgattccccaagttat | gatgagggcgtcgagttc | 110 |
5676_2 | gttcacgaggacagatcagg | ggagttcgaaccatctttataacttg | 109 |
5676_0 (control) | gagcgggatgtctttgtgat | ctaggcagtcactgggatcg | 99 |