$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
The protocol outlined above and in Figure 1 should produce 50 ng or more of total RNA with a RIN of >8.5 from 3,000-4,000 spinal cord motor neuron cell bodies dissected from the 9-10 20 µm slices on about 20 PEN slides. Because this number of slides represents less than 10% of an O.C.T.-embedded block of a mouse spinal cord, it is possible to return to the block, which has been stored at -80 °C, and cut more slices to go through another round of RNA preparation. If larger amounts of RNA are needed for an analysis, it is better to make only the number of slides (e.g. 20) at one time that can be processed through dissection and RNA preparation in a few days, then make more slides for a second round and combine the products. Be sure to check the RIN of each preparation first to avoid combining a good one with a bad. RNA-seq methods are becoming more sensitive and new PCR technologies are promising higher sensitivity than current ones. Thus, less RNA from fewer neuron cell bodies will be required, allowing greater sequencing depth and more comprehensive validation of interesting hits. On the other hand, full adherence to the MIQE recommendations for qRT-PCR analysis and validation4 may require larger amounts to allow for the necessary control reactions for low-abundance RNAs.
Figure 2 shows a typical series of images of a portion of a spinal cord ventral horn section after Azure B staining and dissection. In panel A, the large, darkly stained cell bodies are motor neurons, confirmed by anti-Chat antibody staining2, and are easily differentiated from smaller neighboring cells. Panel B shows the same region with individual cell bodies outlined with the light pen and numbered by the microscope software. The outlines closely follow the margins of the cell bodies, with a small allowance for the cutting width of the laser. This spacing has to be determined for each laser power setting to minimize the inclusion of extraneous material while avoiding loss of motor neuron cytosol. Panels C and D show the section after the laser has cut and the individual cell bodies have dropped into the collection cap. Notice that the cutting margin does not exactly follow the light pen outline in panel C, but does largely stay outside of it. This irregularity is apparent in panel D, as is the darkened area around each cut, which reflects the heat damage to the tissue caused by the laser. Because of this, if two cell bodies are very close to each other, it is better to outline them for a single cut, rather than trying to cut them separately and losing some RNA to heat damage at their region of near-contact.
Figure 3 shows typical results of an electrophoretic analysis of the RNA integrity of a sample of RNA prepared from ~4,000 mouse motor neuron cell bodies collected by LMD. The upper panel is the electropherogram produced by 1 µl of the total RNA; the inset at the right is an image of the gel. In both, note the prominent ribosomal RNA peaks. The lower panel is the electropherogram of the lane containing RNA size standards. The analysis software calculated an RIN of 9.8 for this sample, with a concentration of 4.9 ng/µl. A total of 13 µl of this solution was available after the analysis, providing 64 ng of RNA for downstream qRT-PCR validation of transcript amounts. For a typical qRT-PCR analysis of moderately abundant transcripts, 0.15-0.20 ng of total RNA is sufficient to produce accurate quantitation2, so the amount of RNA available from this preparation is sufficient to validate a number of transcripts with multiple primer sets, as recommended4. Of course, larger amounts of input RNA can be used to permit validation of rare transcripts. This amount is also more than sufficient to permit library preparation and next-generation RNA-seq.

Figure 1. Overview of spinal cord slice production and laser capture microdissection of spinal cord motor neuron cell bodies. A) Major steps in slice production and staining. B) Cartoon view of spinal cord section and laser dissection. Click here to view larger image.

Figure 2. Before-and-after images of a laser dissection of Azure B stained motor neuron cell bodies. A) A portion of the ventral horn of a stained section. Note the four large, darkly stained cells. There are also a few lightly stained and somewhat smaller cells, which are not motor neurons (confirmed by anti-Chat antibody staining; not shown, but see Bandyopadhyay2) and which will not be selected for dissection. The many small, dark spots are probably neuronal processes (dendrites and axons), but this has not been confirmed. B) The four cell bodies outlined with the light pen. Note that the outlines closely follow the margins of the cells, with a minimum distance between them. This spacing should be established empirically for each microscope and laser. The software numbers the individual neurons, which simplifies keeping track of how many have been collected. C and D) After the laser has cut and the pieces containing the cell bodies have dropped into the collection cap. Note that the hole left behind is somewhat larger than the outline and is irregular. This reflects the width of the laser beam and its slightly variable cutting efficiency depending on the local composition of the tissue. Also apparent is the rim of darkened tissue surrounding each hole due to local heating damage caused by the laser.
Click here to view larger image.

Figure 3. Electrophoretic analysis of the integrity of RNA prepared from LMD samples. A) A 1 µl aliquot of the RNA prepared from ~4,000 motor neuron cell bodies by the above protocol was analyzed by microcapillary electrophoresis on a microfluidics chip. The electropherogram is shown, with prominent ribosomal RNA peaks. On the right is an image of the gel itself. B) The electropherogram of the size standards is shown, with the corresponding gel lane to the right. The instrument software calculated a RIN of 9.8 for this sample and a concentration of 4.9 ng/µl. Click here to view larger image.