4.7 Article

Validating Reference Gene Expression Stability in Human Ovarian Follicles, Oocytes, Cumulus Cells, Ovarian Medulla, and Ovarian Cortex Tissue

Journal

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms23020886

Keywords

housekeeping genes; human oocytes; preantral follicles; ovarian tissue; quantitative real-time PCR; NormFinder

Funding

  1. Independent Research Fund Denmark [0134-00448]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The stability of reference genes (RGs) in human ovarian cells and tissues varies, highlighting the importance of selecting appropriate RGs for specific cell types or tissues in RT-qPCR analysis.
Human ovarian cells are phenotypically very different and are often only available in limited amounts. Despite the fact that reference gene (RG) expression stability has been validated in oocytes and other ovarian cells from several animal species, the suitability of a single universal RG in the different human ovarian cells and tissues has not been determined. The present study aimed to validate the expression stability of five of the most used RGs in human oocytes, cumulus cells, preantral follicles, ovarian medulla, and ovarian cortex tissue. The selected genes were glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GAPDH), beta-2-microglobulin (B2M), large ribosomal protein P0 (RPLP0), beta-actin (ACTB), and peptidylprolyl isomerase A (PPIA). Overall, the stability of all RGs differed among ovarian cell types and tissues. NormFinder identified ACTB as the best RG for oocytes and cumulus cells, and B2M for medulla tissue and isolated follicles. The combination of two RGs only marginally increased the stability, indicating that using a single validated RG would be sufficient when the available testing material is limited. For the ovarian cortex, depending on culture conditions, GAPDH or ACTB were found to be the most stable genes. Our results highlight the importance of assessing RGs for each cell type or tissue when performing RT-qPCR analysis.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available