A subscription to JoVE is required to view this content. Sign in or start your free trial.
This protocol describes how to use the MEDUSA analytical method to quantify the death regulatory effect of each gene knockout. It includes instructions on determining experimental conditions that optimize sensitivity and a step-by-step tutorial on performing the analysis.
Systematic screening of gain- or loss-of-function genetic perturbations can be used to characterize the genetic dependencies and mechanisms of regulation for essentially any cellular process of interest. These experiments typically involve profiling from a pool of single gene perturbations and how each genetic perturbation affects the relative cell fitness. When applied in the context of drug efficacy studies, often called chemo-genetic profiling, these methods should be effective at identifying drug mechanisms of action. Unfortunately, fitness-based chemo-genetic profiling studies are ineffective at identifying all components of a drug response. For instance, these studies generally fail to identify which genes regulate drug-induced cell death. Several issues contribute to obscuring death regulation in fitness-based screens, including the confounding effects of proliferation rate variation, variation in the drug-induced coordination between growth and death, and, in some cases, the inability to separate DNA from live and dead cells. MEDUSA is an analytical method for identifying death-regulatory genes in conventional chemo-genetic profiling data. It works by using computational simulations to estimate the growth and death rates that created an observed fitness profile rather than scoring fitness itself. Effective use of the method depends on optimal tittering of experimental conditions, including the drug dose, starting population size, and length of the assay. This manuscript will describe how to set up a chemo-genetic profiling study for MEDUSA-based analysis, and we will demonstrate how to use the method to quantify death rates in chemo-genetic profiling data.
In chemo-genetic profiling, systematic genetic perturbations are used to understand the contribution of each gene to a given drug response1,2,3. These experiments are valuable and can reveal important insights about drug responses, including the drug's binding target and mechanisms of drug influx/efflux. However, because these experiments are typically performed in a pooled manner that evaluates all genes simultaneously, generating mechanistic insights from chemo-genetic profiling data can be challenging.
The control mechanisms and genetic depe....
1. Optimization of the drug dose to induce cell death
NOTE: The protocol below is for optimizing one combination of cell line, drug, and dose using the FLICK assay7,8. The example data for this protocol describes the optimization and screening of 5 μM etoposide in U2OS cells, but the same optimization steps could be applied to any other desired combination of cell line and drug/dose. This protocol does not require the collection or analysis of dead cells. This protocol can be used for suspension cultures, provided that dead cells are removed. For suspension cultu....
Using this protocol, we explored the genetic dependencies of etoposide-induced death in U2OS cells. Etoposide is a commonly used DNA-damaging chemotherapy15. This chemo-genetic profiling experiment was performed using the GeCKOv2 library16 in Cas9 expressing U2OS cells5. In these types of experiments, gene function is typically inferred from the relative abundance of a given knockout clone when comparing drug-treated versus untreated populations (
In this protocol, we describe the use of the MEDUSA analytical method for quantifying chemo-genetic profiling data to score how genetic perturbations alter drug-induced growth and death rates. Because the primary output of a chemo-genetic profiling experiment is related to population size, not rates, the underlying rates are inferred using simulations. Thus, the critical steps in the method are the accurate experimental parameterization of drug response kinetics, which includes the untreated cell proliferation rate, the .......
The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
We thank all members of the Lee Lab, past and present, for their contributions to our lab's point of view on evaluating drug responses. This work was supported by funding MJL and MEH from the National Institutes of Health (U01CA265709, R21CA294000, and R35GM152194 to MJL, and F31CA268847 to MEH), the funding MJL from the Jayne Koskinas Ted Giovanis Foundation.
....Name | Company | Catalog Number | Comments |
100mm Fisherbrand TC Dishes | Fisher Scientific | FB012924 | For growing cells and optimizing population size |
150mm Fisherbrand TC Dishes | Fisher Scientific | FB012925 | For growing cells and optimizing population size |
DESeq2 | R Package | v1.44.0 | For calculating fold-change |
DMEM | Corning | 10017CV | For seeding and drugging cells |
DMSO | Fisher Scientific | MT-25950CQC | For seeding and drugging cells |
Fisherbrand 96-Well, Cell Culture-Treated, U-Shaped-Bottom Microplate | Fisher Scientific | FB012932 | For seeding and drugging cells (pin plate) |
Greiner Bio-One CELLSTAR μClear 96-well, Cell Culture-Treated, Flat-Bottom Microplate | Greiner | 655090 | For seeding and drugging cells |
MATLAB | Mathworks | R2024a | For performing FLICK, GRADE, and MEDUSA |
Microplate fluorescence reader | Tecan | Spark | For dead cell measurements |
Sytox Green | Thermo Fisher Scientific | S7020 | For dead cell measurements |
TKOV3 CRISPR library | Addgene | 125517 | For performing CRISPR screen |
Triton-X 100 | Thermo Fisher Scientific | J66624-AP | For permeabilizing cells |
Trypan blue | Corning | MT25900CI | For measure live/dead cells |
Request permission to reuse the text or figures of this JoVE article
Request PermissionThis article has been published
Video Coming Soon
ABOUT JoVE
Copyright © 2025 MyJoVE Corporation. All rights reserved