4.5 Article

Identification of suitable reference genes for measurement of gene expression in human cervical tissues

Journal

ANALYTICAL BIOCHEMISTRY
Volume 405, Issue 2, Pages 224-229

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ab.2010.06.029

Keywords

Cervical cancer; Real-time PCR; Reference gene; GeNorm; NormFinder

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [30672229, 30672230]
  2. Special Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education of China [20070335054]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

For quantitative real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR), the most commonly used normalization strategy is to select a stable reference gene. However, no suitable reference genes have been identified in cervical tissues to date. The aim of this study was to identify the most stable gene or a set of genes as reference genes for RT-qPCR analysis in cervical tissues from a panel of 12 candidates (ALAS1, PPIA, GAPDH, HBB, TBP, ACTIN, B2M, MBNL2, PGKL, RPLP0, RPL-4, and EEF1A1). In total, 20 normal and 20 cervical cancer specimens were examined. Gene expression data were analyzed using two different statistical models (geNorm and NormFinder). EEF1A1 was identified as the most stable and reliable reference gene, followed by GAPDH and RPLP0, whereas EEF1A1 and GAPDH were the best two-gene combination by NormFinder. The expression validity of EEF1A1 was further determined in 21 normal, 22 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN2-3), and 18 cancer tissues: no expression differences were found among normal. CIN2-3, and cancer tissues (P > 0.05). Our results suggested that EEF1A1 can be used as a reference gene for normalization in gene profiling studies in clinic cervical samples, and the combination of EEF1A1 and GAPDH could be recommended as a much more reliable normalization strategy. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available