Method Article

Multi-Species Tardigrade RNA Isolation Protocol

15 views

⸱

DOI:

10.3791/72120

⸱

September 1st, 2026

 ,  , 
1Biology Department, The University of North Carolina Asheville, 2Department of Biological Sciences, Florida International University, 3Biology Department, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

In This Article

Summary

This protocol details RNA isolation procedures from various tardigrade species using a column-based RNA isolation kit designed to isolate RNA from small amounts of tissue and yield sufficient amounts of high-quality RNA for downstream applications such as RNA sequencing and complementary DNA synthesis.

Abstract

Tardigrades are microscopic animals that are known for their exceptional tolerance to environmental stress. These animals can survive desiccation, extreme pressure, low temperatures, and high levels of ionizing radiation. However, the molecular mechanisms underlying these extremotolerant capabilities remain incompletely understood. The molecular approaches used to investigate these mechanisms, which include RNA sequencing, RNA interference (RNAi), and heterologous expression of tardigrade genes in systems such as bacteria, require the isolation of high-quality messenger RNA (mRNA) from limited biological material. In this study, we describe a reproducible protocol for isolating total RNA from tardigrades that is (1) effective across multiple species, including a heterotardigrade species, (2) requires only 25–200 animals, depending on body size, and (3) yields RNA of sufficient quantity and quality for downstream applications. The present protocol successfully enables efficient RNA recovery from reasonable numbers of tardigrades and supports molecular investigations of stress tolerance across various tardigrade species.

Introduction

Tardigrades are well known for their ability to survive extreme stress that other animals would not, including desiccation, extreme pressures, extreme temperatures, and DNA-damaging agents such as chemotherapeutic drugs and ionizing radiation1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8. In recent years, scientists have investigated the mechanisms that underlie the extreme resilience of tardigrades using molecular approaches such as RNA sequencing, RNA interference (RNAi), and heterologous expression of tardigrade genes in other systems, including human cells and bacteria8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20. When applied, these approaches have been a powerful tool to give us insight into how exactly tardigrades are capable of such extreme stress resistance8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22. However, all of these molecular approaches to understanding tardigrade stress tolerance rely on the ability to isolate RNA from these tiny animals in ample quantity and with adequate quality for use in downstream processes.

A previous method for RNA isolation from tardigrades proved successful for researchers working with Hypsibius exemplaris23. However, upon attempting to replicate this protocol in H. exemplaris, we found it to be unreliable in the resulting RNA concentration and quality (unpublished data). An alternative phenol-based RNA isolation method has been shown to work for H. exemplaris, Ramazzottius varieornatus, and a heterotardigrade species13,21,22,24,25,26. This protocol has been shown to provide RNA of ample quality and quantity for downstream processes from both single animals and pools of animals (~50). However, this protocol requires the user to handle phenol-containing reagents. Phenol is a hazardous chemical that requires careful handling, and improper execution of this protocol can result in phenol carryover affecting RNA purity and downstream applications. Another previously published protocol for RNA isolation from tardigrades focuses on the ability to isolate RNA from single animals27. Although this is a valuable protocol for applications such as quantitative PCR (qPCR)27, it is less appropriate for downstream applications like RNA sequencing, where the goal is to attain a more holistic view of how animals respond to a certain stressor or condition.

These limitations in available RNA isolation protocols led to the investigation of alternative methods for isolating RNA from tardigrades. The column-based RNA isolation kit used in this protocol is marketed to isolate RNA from small amounts of tissue. This kit has also been used previously to isolate RNA from insect tissues for downstream RNA sequencing analysis, suggesting that it might be appropriate for isolations from other small, cuticle-bearing animals like tardigrades28. This study outlines the step-by-step protocol for using this column-based RNA isolation kit with tardigrades, including explanations of specific cautions to be taken when performing this protocol with tardigrades. This article reports the success of this protocol in six tardigrade species (H. exemplaris, Milnesium sp., Paramacrobiotus experimentalis, Paramacrobiotus fairbanksi, Paramacrobiotus gadabouti, and the heterotardigrade Viridiscus celatus). The study has validated that RNA of substantial quality and quantity can be obtained from as few as 25 animals. Examples of resulting RNA concentration and quality data are also provided and are appropriate for downstream applications such as RNA sequencing (with minimal bias, exponential library amplification) and complementary DNA (cDNA) synthesis. This RNA isolation protocol has already proved useful to uncover mechanisms of radiation tolerance in H. exemplaris8. The success of this protocol across various tardigrade species suggests that it would be applicable more broadly to investigating stress-tolerance mechanisms, developmental mechanisms, and evolutionary processes.

Protocol

The following protocol does not require institutional animal ethics approval, as invertebrate animals are exempt from this requirement. The reagents and the equipment used are listed in the Table of Materials.

1. Preparation of equipment and area for RNA isolation

  1. Turn on a heat block or water bath to 42 °C in preparation for RNA extraction.
  2. Obtain a microfuge tube rack, pipettes (2 µL, 20 µL, 200 µL, and 1000 µL), and appropriate-sized filtered pipette tips.
  3. Clean the benchtop, tube rack, pipettes, and tip boxes with RNase Away, dilute bleach solution (10%), or 70% ethanol to denature any residual RNase.
    NOTE: Excessive RNase on the equipment or in the area that you are isolating RNA may result in insufficient RNA quality after isolation due to degradation. Reduce this risk by allowing ample time for the RNase-denaturing chemicals to work, and by allowing the area and equipment to dry completely before proceeding.
  4. Wear gloves for all steps of this protocol and frequently treat gloves with an RNase-denaturing solution throughout the protocol to prevent RNase degradation of RNA.

2. Collecting animals for RNA isolation

  1. Using a pipette bulb attached to an aspirator tube assembly chamber fitted with a glass capillary (Figure 1A), an Irwin loop, or micropipette, move 25–200 animals (depending on species size) from their culture dishes to a dish with clean spring water to decrease the amount of non-tardigrade material (algae or other food sources like nematodes or rotifers, depending on species).
  2. Obtain a 1.5 mL RNase-free tube and pestle.
  3. Using a pipette bulb attached to an aspirator tube assembly chamber fitted with a glass capillary or an Irwin loop, move the animals into the bottom of the 1.5 mL RNase-free tube, taking special care to transfer as little water as possible with the animals.
  4. Centrifuge at 4,500 g for 3 min to pellet the tardigrades into the bottom of the microfuge tube.
  5. While observing the tube with pelleted tardigrades under a dissection microscope, use a 20 µL pipette or a pipette bulb attached to an aspirator tube assembly chamber fitted with a glass capillary with an opening smaller than the tardigrades you are isolating RNA from, to carefully remove as much water as possible without disturbing the pellet of tardigrades. See Figure 1B for a representation of an acceptable amount of remaining water.
    NOTE: Be cautious to leave a skim of water here so that the animals do not desiccate in the brief time between removal of water and addition of the Extraction Buffer (XB). If animals desiccate, this may result in poor RNA quality after isolation.
  6. Add 100 µL of Extraction Buffer (XB) to the tube containing the tardigrades.

3. Mechanical disruption of tardigrades and RNA extraction

  1. Using the RNase-free pestle, disrupt the tardigrades by gently but firmly grinding the pestle into the bottom of the tube for ~30 s. A total of 20–30 grinding actions should be sufficient to disrupt the tardigrades.
  2. Remove the pestle from the tube, using caution to ensure that as much liquid as possible remains in the bottom of the tube.
  3. Check the contents of the microfuge tube under the dissection microscope to ensure that there are no visible intact animals remaining.
  4. Incubate the mixture at 42 °C for 30 min on a shaking heat block with gentle shaking (300 rpm).
    NOTE: The Extraction Buffer (XB) stabilizes the RNA to prevent degradation at this temperature.

4. Conditioning the RNA isolation column

  1. In the last 10 min of the extraction incubation, assemble the column for RNA collection and purification. Place a purification column in a collection tube and label the column appropriately.
  2. Add 250 µL Conditioning Buffer (CB) directly to the column.
  3. Incubate at room temperature for 5 min.
  4. Centrifuge at 16,000 × g for 1 min and discard flowthrough. The column is now ready to receive the RNA supernatant from the next step.
  5. Remove the 10x DNase I Reaction Buffer and Nuclease-Free Water from the freezer to thaw completely in time for step 6 below.

5. Binding RNA to the column

  1. After the extraction incubation, centrifuge the tube containing mechanically disrupted tardigrades and Extraction Buffer (XB) at 3,000 × g for 2 min.
  2. Obtain a new RNase-free tube and label it accordingly.
  3. Using a 200 µL pipette with a filter tip, carefully remove the supernatant from the pelleted tardigrade cuticles. Be careful not to disturb the cuticle pellet and to only remove supernatant.
    NOTE: Transferring cuticle into subsequent steps will result in a lower efficiency of column RNA yield due to physical clogging of the column. To avoid this potential error, you can observe the pipette tip with supernatant under the microscope to ensure the absence of cuticle. If any cuticle is present, put the supernatant back in the tube and repeat the centrifugation step.
  4. Transfer the supernatant to your newly-labeled, RNase-free tube.
  5. Pipette 100 µL 70% ethanol into the tube containing your RNA and mix thoroughly by pipetting up and down multiple times. At this step, one should see clear viscous filaments upon adding the ethanol. This is a good sign that there is RNA present in your supernatant.
  6. Pipette the entire mixture (200 µL) onto your prepared column from step 4.
    NOTE: When pipetting any solutions onto the column for this and subsequent steps, take care to dispense the liquid into the middle of the column and avoid physically touching the column with the pipette tip. Mechanical puncture of the column will result in downstream issues with RNA quality and quantity.
  7. To bind RNA to the column, centrifuge for 2 min at 100 × g, followed by centrifugation at 16,000 × g for 30 s to remove flowthrough.

6. Making DNase I solution

  1. Allow the 10x DNase I Reaction Buffer and Nuclease-Free Water to thaw completely before making the solution.
  2. For each RNA isolation, prepare a 40 µL solution in a separate 1.5 mL microfuge tube consisting of 32 µL Nuclease-Free Water, 4 µL 10x DNase I Reaction Buffer, and 4 µL DNase I Enzyme. Keep the solution on ice until ready to apply to the column in Step 7.3.

7. Washing the RNA and DNase I treatment

  1. Pipette 100 µL Wash Buffer 1 (W1) directly onto the purification column containing the bound RNA (from step 5.7).
  2. Centrifuge for 1 min at 8,000 × g and remove flowthrough.
  3. Pipette 40 µL DNase I solution from Step 6 directly onto the purification column and incubate at room temperature for 15 min to remove DNA contamination.
  4. Pipette 40 µL Wash Buffer 1 (W1) onto the purification column and centrifuge at 8,000 × g for 30 s.
  5. Pipette 100 µL Wash Buffer 2 (W2) onto the purification column and centrifuge at 8,000 × g for 1 min.
  6. Pipette another 100 µL Wash Buffer 2 (W2) onto the purification column and centrifuge at 16,000 × g for 2 min. Discard the flowthrough.
  7. Centrifuge column at 16,000 × g for 1 min to dry the column.

8. Eluting RNA

  1. Obtain a 0.5 mL tube (included in the kit) for each RNA isolation and label appropriately. This will be the tube that contains the RNA after isolation.
  2. Transfer the column with bound and washed RNA to the labeled 0.5 mL tube. The column should click firmly into this tube.
  3. While looking at the tube from the side, position the pipette tip directly above the column membrane, expel 11 µL of Elution Buffer (EB) onto the column, and incubate for 1 min at room temperature.
    NOTE: Failure to disperse the Elution Buffer (EB) directly onto the column will result in reduced RNA yields. If droplets of liquid are observed around the column perimeter, this suggests inappropriate dispersion of the Elution Buffer (EB) onto the column. If seen, it is recommended to repeat this step with the flowthrough from Step 8.5, ensuring that the Elution Buffer (EB) is expelled directly into the center of the column.
  4. Place the 0.5 mL tube containing the column into the collection tube supplied with the kit for proper fit during centrifugation (Figure 2).
  5. Centrifuge the column at 1,000 × g for 1 min to distribute the Elution Buffer (EB) and then spin at 16,000 × g for 1 min to elute the RNA.
  6. Place the 0.5 mL tube containing the RNA on ice immediately.

9. Validation of RNA quantity and quality with a microvolume spectrophotometer

NOTE: Other methods can be used to assess RNA quantity and quality. Here, a method with a microvolume spectrophotometer is used. A fluorometer or microfluidics gel electrophoresis tool can also be used29.

  1. Wipe the pedestal of the microvolume spectrophotometer with a lint-free wipe to ensure it is clean of other liquids.
  2. Select the RNA setting on the spectrophotometer for analysis.
  3. Blank the spectrophotometer with 1 µL of the Elution Buffer (EB) used in Step 8.3.
  4. After blanking, wipe the Elution Buffer (EB) off the pedestal with a lint-free wipe.
  5. Keeping the 0.5 mL tube containing RNA on ice, pipette 1 µL of RNA onto the pedestal of the spectrophotometer. Lower the arm of the spectrophotometer to measure the absorbance of the sample to quantify and assess the quality of the isolated RNA.
    NOTE: Please see the “Results” section below for details about acceptable quality and quantity for downstream applications.

Results

A critical step in this protocol, as mentioned above, is removing an appropriate amount of water from the collected tardigrades prior to adding the Extraction Buffer (XB) for RNA extraction. Leaving too much water will result in dilution of the Extraction Buffer (XB) and in subpar (i.e., RIN < 7, 260/280 ratio <1.8, 260/230 ratio <1.8, and/or concentration <5 ng/µL) RNA extraction from the animals, resulting in reduced RNA concentration and quality after elution. Removing too much water will rapidly desiccate animals, potentially leading to lethality and reduced RNA quality due to increased RNase activity after death. A visual representation is provided showing the appropriate amount of water to leave in the tube with the tardigrades prior to adding the Extraction Buffer (XB) (Figure 1B) to aid in the successful completion of this protocol.

To date, this protocol has been attempted in six different tardigrade species, including a heterotardigrade (V. celatus). These isolations resulted in RNA concentrations ranging from 11 ng/µL to 106.6 ng/µL (confirmed on a microvolume spectrophotometer, Table 1) and 9 ng/µL to 113 ng/µL (confirmed through microfluidics gel electrophoresis, Table 2). The number of animals needed for RNA isolation varies depending on the size of the species that you are isolating from. Larger tardigrades, like Paramacrobiotus species and Milnesium sp., yield ample RNA concentrations from as few as 25 animals (Table 1). For smaller species, like H. exemplaris and V. celatus, isolations are more successful from 100 or more animals (Table 1). The majority of the isolations have a 260/280 ratio around 2, indicating clean RNA30. Isolations from some species (V. celatus and H. exemplaris, and the Paramacrobiotus species) occasionally result in a low 260/230 ratio, suggesting contamination from reagents30. This often occurred when using fewer animals (100 for V. celatus and H. exemplaris, and 25 for Paramacrobiotus species), suggesting that too few animals might increase the risk of reagent contamination in the final eluted RNA. Through the assessment of RNA quality via microfluidics gel electrophoresis, an RNA integrity number (RIN) can be calculated. A RIN between 9–10 suggests high-quality RNA with little degradation31 and it is generally advised not to move forward with downstream processes like RNA sequencing if the RIN is below 7. Some example microfluidics gel electrophoresis results are provided (Figure 3) from samples with high and low/undetectable RIN values. Some of these samples were excluded from further analysis (Table 2, Figure 3A,D). However, some samples with low/undetectable RIN were selected to move forward for library prep for RNA sequencing and still resulted in quality RNA sequencing results (Table 2, Figure 3B,F, unpublished data, see “Discussion” for more information).

figure-results-1
Figure 1: RNA isolation set-up. Images showing a pipette bulb attached to an aspirator tube assembly chamber fitted with a glass capillary for movement of animals and removal of water (A) and a representation of an acceptable amount of water remaining before addition of Extraction Buffer (XB) to Paramacrobiotus tardigrades (B). Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

figure-results-2
Figure 2: Elution tube set-up for final elution. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

figure-results-3
Figure 3: Representative microfluidics gel electrophoresis results for H. exemplaris and P. gadabouti. (A) RNA gel from H. exemplaris exposed to ionizing radiation. (B) RNA gel from P. gadabouti and H. exemplaris under control conditions. (C–F) Representative peak profiles from a high-quality H. exemplaris RNA sample (C), from an H. exemplaris sample of questionable quality (D), from a good-quality P. gadabouti sample (E), and from an H. exemplaris sample with apparent degradation (peak at 147 bp) (F). Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Table 1: Representative RNA concentrations and quality information from various tardigrade species collected with a microvolume spectrophotometer. *Concentrations under 20 ng/µL, as detected with a microvolume spectrophotometer, may result in inaccurate absorbance ratios. **Low 260/230 ratio caused by incorrect centrifugation speed at Step 5.7. Please click here to download this Table.

Table 2: Representative RNA concentrations and quality information from two tardigrade species collected with a microfluidics gel electrophoresis system. Please click here to download this Table.

Discussion

The goal of this protocol is to facilitate the isolation of RNA from tardigrades that is of high enough quantity and quality to be applicable for downstream applications that facilitate investigations of tardigrade stress tolerance. The protocol presented here has outlined areas where users may encounter issues, including removing enough water prior to adding Extraction Buffer (XB) (Step 2.5), disrupting tardigrade bodies (Step 3.1–3.3), transferring the supernatant to the column for purification (Step 5.3), and eluting the RNA (Step 8.3). Errors in any of these steps may result in reduced concentration or quality of the resulting RNA. If the resulting RNA concentration is less than 5 ng/µL (as verified by a microvolume spectrophotometer), the user may want to consider redoing the RNA isolation with (1) more starting animals (>100 for small species or >50 for larger species), or (2) repeating the protocol, paying special attention to the water removal, tardigrade disruption, and elution steps.

This article provides examples of RNA quality assessments (RIN, 260/280 ratio, 260/230 ratio) that were deemed appropriate or inappropriate for RNA sequencing (Table 1, Table 2, Figure 3). Occasionally, low (<1.0) 260/230 ratios are observed in some RNA isolations using this protocol (Table 1), suggesting the presence of residual organic compounds. Usually, this was associated with low animal counts. If increasing animal input is not an option, or if users consistently encounter the low 260/230 ratio, including an additional wash step with Wash Buffer 2 (W2) (repeat Step 7.6) is recommended and/or extending the dry-spin centrifugation time in Step 7.7 to ensure the removal of these contaminants. Additionally, it is to be noted that the one representative H. exemplaris isolation with a low 260/230 ratio (Table 1) was performed by a first-time, undergraduate protocol user who, in retrospect, realized that Step 5.7 (spin to remove ethanol after binding RNA to the column) was performed at the incorrect centrifugation speed (too slow). This likely resulted in ethanol being retained on the column and carried through the protocol, resulting in the poor 260/230 ratio. Subsequent isolations by this user have resulted in 260/230 values within a reasonable range (no lower than 1.5). Therefore, all users, especially first-time users, should pay close attention to centrifugation speeds when working through the protocol to avoid these potential issues. Despite occasionally low 260/230 ratios or low RIN in H. exemplaris, RNA with similar quality readings could still be used for downstream RNA sequencing to examine differential gene expression after exposure to ionizing radiation or other stressors8 (Table 1, Table 2, and unpublished data). Similarly, RNA isolated from P. gadabouti with this protocol resulted in high RNA concentration and quality (as verified by RIN, Table 2, Figure 3) and resulted in meaningful RNA sequencing data (unpublished data). Anecdotally, this study successfully used RNA from H. exemplaris with low concentrations (5–9 ng/µL) to make cDNA for successful downstream cloning of H. exemplaris genes8. When RNA from H. exemplaris resulted in low/undetectable concentration and RIN (measured with microfluidics gel electrophoresis), RNA was re-isolated for this treatment before moving forward with library preparation for RNA sequencing (Table 2, Figure 3A,D). The decision to redo RNA isolation for this sample (Figure 3A,D), rather than move forward with sequencing as was done with other samples from H. exemplaris with undetectable RIN (Figure 3B,F), was made based on the lack of clear bands on the microfluidics gel, which can be indicative of a loading error, degraded RNA, or insufficient RNA concentration. In contrast, when RNA isolated from H. exemplaris had a relatively low concentration, an undetectable RIN, and evidence of some RNA degradation, as indicated by higher levels of small-sized RNA, it yielded usable RNA sequencing data after library preparation (unpublished data, Table 2, Figure 3B,F). Therefore, although some guidelines are provided here for determining whether RNA samples are suitable for downstream applications, the user should use their discretion and consider their specific downstream application when assessing whether the quality and quantity of the RNA are sufficient to move forward.

Scientists who want to isolate RNA from tardigrades have multiple aspects to consider when determining which protocol is best suited to their purpose. All of the previously reported RNA isolation methods (including the method reported here) have yielded RNA of sufficient quantity and quality to support downstream applications such as RNA sequencing, cDNA synthesis, and qPCR8,12,13,17,21,22,25,27. Cost is often a consideration, especially for research labs with small budgets or teaching labs. The protocol reported here is more expensive than previously reported protocols per isolation reaction. However, we would argue that the cost increase comes with benefits relative to previously reported protocols. Compared to other column-based RNA isolation protocols23, the RNA isolation protocol reported here can produce ample RNA of sufficient quality from a smaller amount of input material (fewer animals). Additionally, as mentioned in the Introduction, the previously reported column-based RNA isolation protocol worked inconsistently in our hands, often resulting in extremely low RNA yields insufficient for downstream processes (unpublished data). The protocol reported here is also considerably safer compared to a phenol-based RNA isolation approach, as it does not require users to handle hazardous chemicals that require a fume hood. Also, a common user issue with phenol-based RNA extraction protocols is phenol carryover, which affects RNA purity and can disrupt downstream applications. These issues make phenol-based RNA extraction less accessible to undergraduates (whether in research labs or classrooms). However, the phenol-based method is the most cost-effective. The protocol reported here is not suitable for isolating RNA from a single animal to assess single-animal transcriptomic responses (as published in Kirk et al.) but is instead valuable for examining shared changes across individuals in response to a stressor, providing a more holistic view of stress responses. Therefore, users should weigh the importance of cost, animal availability, and user accessibility of existing protocols to determine which protocol best suits their needs.

This report validated that this protocol produces RNA of sufficient quantity and quality from six different tardigrade species, including a representative species from Heterotardigrada. Additionally, this RNA isolation method yields sufficient RNA from a reasonable number of animals (25–200, depending on species size). The validation of this RNA isolation protocol in multiple species opens the door to understanding captivating aspects of tardigrade biology. This is not limited to the investigation of stress tolerance but also extends to understanding the evolution of these animals, including the evolution of resistance mechanisms and their development. This protocol is particularly useful for non-model and field-collected tardigrade species where biomass is limited, and standardized RNA isolation methods are lacking. Lastly, this protocol is accessible to researchers and can be performed reproducibly by undergraduate researchers, making it an asset in teaching or research labs at primarily undergraduate institutions.

Disclosures

The authors have nothing to disclose.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by startup funds from UNC Asheville (To CCH) and an NSF grant 2225683 to Jason Pienaar (postdoctoral advisor to PK). We thank the UNC High Throughput Sequencing Facility for technical assistance.

Materials

List of materials used in this article
NameCompanyCatalog NumberComments
1.5 mL Microfuge TubesUSA Scientific1615-5500Seal-Rite 1.5 mL graduated microcentrifuge tube, natural, polypropylene, 500/bag
70% EthanolVWR71001-654For cleaning benches/equipment
Arcturis PicoPure RNA Isolation KitFisherKIT0204Kit containing components for the isolation protocol described in this manuscript
CentrifugeEppendorf5405000441Centrifuge 5425, rotary knobs, non-refrigerated, with Rotor FA-24x2, 120 V/50-60 Hz (US)
Deer Park Spring WaterAny Grocery StoreN/AThis is the media for tardigrade cultures and used to rinse tardigrades prior to RNA isolation
Dissection MicroscopeZeissN/AZeiss Stemi 305, zoom ratio 5:1 and total magnification 8x-40x, with transillumination Unit M LED
DNase IFisherFEREN0521Thermo Scientific DNase I, RNase-free (1 U/uL)
Filtered Pipette Tips 10 uLVWR76322-528Any filtered pipette tip is fine
Filtered Pipette Tips 1000 uLVWR76322-154Any filtered pipette tip is fine
Filtered Pipette Tips 20 uLVWR76322-134Any filtered pipette tip is fine
Filtered Pipette Tips 200 uLVWR76322-150Any filtered pipette tip is fine
Glass CapillariesFisher50-821-811World Precision Instrument Standard Glass Capillaries - 1B120-6 (6 inch, OD 1.2 mm, no filament). These get pulled into two glass capillaries with narrowed endings over a flame and then broken to the appropriate diameter to mouth pipette the tardigrade species of choice.
Heat BlockEppendorf5382000023Eppendorf ThermoMixer C, basic device without thermoblock, 100-130 V/50-60 Hz (US/JP/South America/TW)
High Sensitivity RNA Screen Tape LadderAgilent5067-5581Ladder for high sensitivity analysis of total RNA on TapeStation Systems
High Sensitivity RNA ScreenTapeAgilent5067-5579For high sensitivity analysis of total RNA on TapeStation Systems
High Sensitivity RNA ScreenTape Sample BufferAgilent5067-5580Buffer for high sensitivity analysis of total RNA on TapeStation Systems
Microfluidics Gel ElectrophoresisAgilentG2991BAAgilent 4200 TapeStation System
Microvolume SpectrophotometerFisher13400607Thermo Scientific NanoDrop UltraC FL, Detector Type: 2048-element, CMOS Linear Image Sensor, Display: 10 in. High Definition Color Display, Languages: Chinese, English, French, Japanese, German, Light Source: Xenon Flash, Spectral Bandwidth: less than or equal to 1.8 nm (FWHM at Hg 254 nm), Voltage: 12 VDC
Mouth PipetteMillipore SigmaA5177Aspirator tube assemblies for calibrated microcapillary pipettes
Nuclease Free WaterFisherFERR0581Thermo Scientific Water, nuclease-free
Pipettes (2.5 uL, 20 uL, 200 uL, and 1000 uL)Eppendorf2231300004Eppendorf Research plus, 4-pack
RNase AwayFisher21-402-178Thermo Scientific RNase AWAY Surface Decontaminant
RNase-Free Tube and PestleFisher12-141-368RNase-free tubes and pestles for RNA isolation

References

  1. Møbjerg N, Neves RC. New insights into survival strategies of tardigrades. Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol. 2021;254:110890.
  2. Møbjerg N, Halberg KA, Jørgensen A, Persson D, Bjørn M, Ramløv H, et al. Survival in extreme environments—on the current knowledge of adaptations in tardigrades. Acta Physiol (Oxf). 2011;202(3):409-420.
  3. Hibshman JD, Clegg JS, Goldstein B. Mechanisms of desiccation tolerance: themes and variations in brine shrimp, roundworms, and tardigrades. Front Physiol. 2020;11:592016.
  4. Hengherr S, Schill RO. Environmental adaptations: cryobiosis. In: Schill RO, editor. Water Bears: The Biology of Tardigrades. Cham: Springer; 2018. p. 295-310.
  5. Schill RO, Hengherr S. Environmental adaptations: desiccation tolerance. In: Schill RO, editor. Water Bears: The Biology of Tardigrades. Cham: Springer; 2018. p. 273-293.
  6. Guidetti R, Rizzo AM, Altiero T, Rebecchi L. What can we learn from the toughest animals of the Earth? Water bears (tardigrades) as multicellular model organisms in order to perform scientific preparations for lunar exploration. Planet Space Sci. 2012;74(1):97-102.
  7. Jönsson KI. Radiation tolerance in tardigrades: current knowledge and potential applications in medicine. Cancers (Basel). 2019;11(9):1333.
  8. Clark-Hachtel CM, Hibshman JD, De Buysscher T, Stair ER, Hicks LM, Goldstein B. The tardigrade Hypsibius exemplaris dramatically upregulates DNA repair pathway genes in response to ionizing radiation. Curr Biol. 2024;34(9):1819-1830.e6.
  9. Hashimoto T, Kunieda T. DNA protection protein, a novel mechanism of radiation tolerance: lessons from tardigrades. Life (Basel). 2017;7(2):26.
  10. Chavez C, Cruz-Becerra G, Fei J, Kassavetis GA, Kadonaga JT. The tardigrade damage suppressor protein binds to nucleosomes and protects DNA from hydroxyl radicals. Elife. 2019;8:e47682.
  11. Kamilari M, Jørgensen A, Schiøtt M, Møbjerg N. Comparative transcriptomics suggest unique molecular adaptations within tardigrade lineages. BMC Genomics. 2019;20(1):607.
  12. Boothby TC, Tapia H, Brozena AH, Piszkiewicz S, Smith AE, Giovannini I, et al. Tardigrades use intrinsically disordered proteins to survive desiccation. Mol Cell. 2017;65(6):975-984.e5.
  13. Yoshida Y, Arakawa K, Tomita M, et al. Time-series transcriptomic screening of factors contributing to the cross-tolerance to UV radiation and anhydrobiosis in tardigrades. BMC Genomics. 2022;23(1):405.
  14. Anoud M, et al. Comparative transcriptomics reveal a novel tardigrade-specific DNA-binding protein induced in response to ionizing radiation. Elife. 2024;13:RP92621.
  15. Förster F, Liang C, Shkumatov AV, et al. Transcriptome analysis in tardigrade species reveals specific molecular pathways for stress adaptations. Bioinform Biol Insights. 2012;6:69-96.
  16. Horikawa DD, Sakashita T, Katagiri C, et al. Analysis of DNA repair and protection in the tardigrade Ramazzottius varieornatus and Hypsibius dujardini after exposure to UVC radiation. PLoS One. 2013;8(6):e64793.
  17. Yoshida Y, Arakawa K, Tomita M, et al. RNA sequencing data for gamma radiation response in the extremotolerant tardigrade Ramazzottius varieornatus. Data Brief. 2021;36:107111.
  18. Li L, et al. Multi-omics landscape and molecular basis of radiation tolerance in a tardigrade. Science. 2024;386(6720):eadl0799.
  19. Hibshman JD, Clark-Hachtel CM, Bloom KS, Goldstein B. A bacterial expression cloning screen reveals single-stranded DNA-binding proteins as potent desicco-protectants. Cell Rep. 2024;43(11):114956.
  20. Hashimoto T, Horikawa DD, Saito Y, et al. Extremotolerant tardigrade genome and improved radiotolerance of human cultured cells by tardigrade-unique protein. Nat Commun. 2016;7:12808.
  21. Yoshida Y, Hirayama A, Arakawa K. Transcriptome analysis of the tardigrade Hypsibius exemplaris exposed to the DNA-damaging agent bleomycin. Proc Jpn Acad Ser B Phys Biol Sci. 2024;100(7):414-28.
  22. Murai Y, et al. Multiomics study of a heterotardigrade, Echiniscus testudo, suggests the possibility of convergent evolution of abundant heat-soluble proteins in Tardigrada. BMC Genomics. 2021;22(1):813.
  23. Boothby TC. Total RNA extraction from tardigrades. Cold Spring Harb Protoc. 2018;2018(11):prot102376.
  24. Arakawa K, Yoshida Y, Tomita M. Genome sequencing of a single tardigrade Hypsibius dujardini individual. Sci Data. 2016;3:160063.
  25. Yoshida Y, Sugiura K, Tomita M, Matsumoto M, Arakawa K. Comparison of the transcriptomes of two tardigrades with different hatching coordination. BMC Dev Biol. 2019;19(1):20.
  26. Yoshida Y, Arakawa K, Tomita M, et al. RNA sequencing data for gamma radiation response in the extremotolerant tardigrade Ramazzottius varieornatus. Data Brief. 2021;36:107111.
  27. Kirk MJ, Xu C, Paules J, Rothman JH. Single-animal, single-tube RNA extraction for comparison of relative transcript levels via qRT-PCR in the tardigrade Hypsibius exemplaris. J Vis Exp. 2025;(215):e66935. doi:10.3791/66935.  
  28. Linz DM, Hara Y, Deem KD, Kuraku S, Hayashi S, Tomoyasu Y. Transcriptomic exploration of the coleopteran wings reveals insight into the evolution of novel structures associated with the beetle elytron. J Exp Zool B Mol Dev Evol. 2023;340(2):197-213.
  29. Agilent Technologies Inc. RNA ScreenTape Assay for TapeStation Systems. Part No. G2991-90121 Rev. D. Santa Clara (CA): Agilent Technologies; 2018.
  30. Manchester KL. Use of UV methods for measurement of protein and nucleic acid concentrations. Biotechniques. 1996;20(6):968-70.
  31. Imbeaud S, et al. Towards standardization of RNA quality assessment using user-independent classifiers of microcapillary electrophoresis traces. Nucleic Acids Res. 2005;33(6):e56.

Reprints and Permissions

Tags

Multi Species ProtocolMessenger RNARNA SequencingRNA InterferenceStress ToleranceHeterologous ExpressionEnvironmental StressMolecular Mechanisms
Video Coming Soon
Contact Us
Recommend to Library

Privacy

Terms of Use

Policies

Copyright © 2026 MyJoVE Corporation. All rights reserved.