Published eLetters
Guidelines
As a forum for professional feedback, submissions of letters are open to all. You do not need to be a subscriber. To avoid redundancy, we urge you to read other people's letters before submitting your own. Name, current appointment, place of work, and email address are required to send a letter, and will be published with your review. We also require that you declare any competing financial interests. Unprofessional submissions will not be considered or responded to.
Jump to comment:
- Page navigation anchor for RE: Correction on methodology used in Mulvey, 2018RE: Correction on methodology used in Mulvey, 2018
Dear Authors and Readers,
I'm thrilled to see this paper not only support our previous findings on prostaglandin E2 receptor function in rodent locus coeruleus, but assaying dozens of compounds and highlighting the importance of non-traditional transmitters in CNS function and behavior.
Just a minor semantic point regarding the methods we used in Mulvey 2018, however -- we did not perform single-cell RNA-sequencing as Linnarrson and others have; rather, we performed Translating Ribosome Affinity Purification (TRAP/TRAP-seq)--a method for enriching RNAs from a specific cell type of interest, followed by "bulk" RNAseq. From a given starting tissue sample, two such bulk RNA pools result. One RNA pool is comprised the immunoprecipitated RNA, enriching for the target cell type, while the other RNA pool contains all RNA that did not bind the immunoprecipitation beads. Some of our colleagues and co-authors on this paper have gone onto perform single-cell RNAseq study of mouse locus coeruleus (Luskin 2022, https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.06.30.498327v1).
Congratulations and thank you, Yasatuka Mukai and colleagues, for such an impressive and sprawling contribution to the study of the locus coeruleus!
Competing Interests: None declared.
