Figure 1.
Effect of different employed RNAi methodology on uncoordinated phenotype in control N2 strain (A), RNAi induced gene silencing of unc-73 gene (B), unc-73 RNAi clone co-incubated with eri-1 RNAi clone (C), unc-73 RNAi clone co-incubated with lin-35 RNAi clone (D) unc-73 RNAi clone co-incubated with eri-1 and lin-35 RNAi clones (E), Pre-incubation with eri-1 RNAi clone followed by incubation with unc-73 RNAi clone (F) Pre-incubation with eri-1 RNAi clone followed by co-incubation with unc-73 and eri-1 RNAi clones(G),Pre-incubation with eri-1 RNAi clone followed by co-incubation with unc-73, eri-1 and lin-35 RNAi clones(H), Pre-incubation with unc-73 RNAi clone followed by incubation with eri-1 RNAi clone (I) Pre-incubation with unc-73 RNAi clone followed by co-incubation with unc-73 and eri-1 RNAi clones (J) Pre-incubation with unc-73 RNAi clone followed by co-incubation with unc-73, eri-1 and lin-35 RNAi clones (K).
Fig 1L is a graphical presentation of worms showing percentages of unc phenotypes examined by three different RNAi methodologies.*p<0.05, **p<0.01, NS - Not significant.
Table 1.
Employed three different RNAi methodologies in wild type N2 strain of C. elegans for uncoordinated phenotype.
Figure 2.
Effect of different employed RNAi methodology on dumpy phenotype in control N2 strain (A), RNAi induced gene silencing of dpy-9 gene (B), dpy-9 RNAi clone co-incubated with eri-1 RNAi clone (C), dpy-9 RNAi clone co-incubated with lin-35 RNAi clone (D) dpy-9 RNAi clone co-incubated with eri-1 and lin-35 RNAi clones (E), Pre-incubation with eri-1 RNAi clone followed by incubation with dpy-9 RNAi clone (F) Pre-incubation with eri-1 RNAi clone followed by co-incubation with dpy-9 and eri-1 RNAi clones(G),Pre-incubation with eri-1 RNAi clone followed by co-incubation with dpy-9, eri-1 and lin-35 RNAi clones(H), Pre-incubation with dpy-9 RNAi clone followed by incubation with eri-1 RNAi clone (I) Pre-incubation with dpy-9 RNAi clone followed by co-incubation with dpy-9 and eri-1 RNAi clones (J) Pre-incubation with dpy-9 RNAi clone followed by co-incubation with dpy-9, eri-1 and lin-35 RNAi clones (K).
Fig 1L is a graphical presentation of worms showing percentages of dumpy phenotypes examined by three different RNAi methodologies. *p<0.05, NS - Not significant.
Table 2.
Employed three different RNAi methodologies in wild type N2 strain of C.elegans for dumpy phenotype.
Figure 3.
Effect of different employed RNAi methodology on blistering of cuticle phenotype in control N2 strain (A), RNAi induced gene silencing of bli-3 gene (B), bli-3 RNAi clone co-incubated with eri-1 RNAi clone (C), bli-3 RNAi clone co-incubated with lin-35 RNAi clone (D) bli-3 RNAi clone co-incubated with eri-1 and lin-35 RNAi clones (E), Pre-incubation with eri-1 RNAi clone followed by incubation with bli-3 RNAi clone (F) Pre-incubation with eri-1 RNAi clone followed by co-incubation with bli-3 and eri-1 RNAi clones(G),Pre-incubation with eri-1 RNAi clone followed by co-incubation with bli-3, eri-1 and lin-35 RNAi clones(H), Pre-incubation with bli-3 RNAi clone followed by incubation with eri-1 RNAi clone (I) Pre-incubation with bli-3 RNAi clone followed by co-incubation with bli-3 and eri-1 RNAi clones (J) Pre-incubation with bli-3 RNAi clone followed by co-incubation with bli-3, eri-1 and lin-35 RNAi clones (K).
Fig 3L is a graphical presentation of worms showing percentages of bli phenotypes examined by three different RNAi methodologies.*p<0.05, NS - Not significant.
Table 3.
Employed three different RNAi methodologies in wild type N2 strain of C.elegans for blistering of cuticle phenotype.
Figure 4.
Comparison of newly identified RNAi methodology performed in RNAi induced gene silencing of unc-73 in wild type background (A), RNAi induced gene silencing of unc-73 in rrf-3 background (B),Pre-incubation with eri-1 RNAi clone followed by co-incubation with unc-73 and eri-1 RNAi clones in wild type background (C), RNAi induced gene silencing of dpy-9 in wild type background (D), RNAi induced gene silencing of dpy-9 in rrf-3 background (E),Pre-incubation with eri-1 RNAi clone followed by co-incubation with dpy-9 and eri-1 RNAi clones in wild type background (F), RNAi induced gene silencing of bli-3 in wild type background (G), RNAi induced gene silencing of bli-3 in rrf-3 background (H),Pre-incubation with eri-1 RNAi clone followed by co-incubation with bli-3 and eri-1 RNAi clones in wild type background (I).
Fig 4J is a graphical presentation of worms showing percentages of unc/dpy/bli phenotypes examined by different RNAi methodologies. *p<0.05,**p<0.01, NS - Not significant.
Table 4.
Comparison of RNAi methodology performed in wild type backgroud, rrf-3 background and carried out using identified method II (b), pre-incubation with eri-1 RNAi clone followed by co-incubation with gene of interest and eri-1 RNAi clones.