4.5 Article

Microarray-driven validation of reference genes for quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction in a rat vocal fold model of mucosal injury

Journal

ANALYTICAL BIOCHEMISTRY
Volume 406, Issue 2, Pages 214-221

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ab.2010.07.021

Keywords

Gene expression; geNorm; Housekeeping gene; Inflammation; Larynx; Tissue repair; Transcription; Wound healing

Funding

  1. National Institute on Deafness [R01 DC004428 and R01 DC004428-S1]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Relative quantification by normalization against a stably expressed reference gene is a widely used data analysis method in microarray and quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) platforms; however, recent evidence suggests that many commonly utilized reference genes are unstable in certain experimental systems and situations. The primary aim of this study, therefore, was to screen and identify stably expressed reference genes in a well-established rat model of vocal fold mucosal injury. We selected and evaluated the expression stability of nine candidate reference genes. Ablim1, Sptbn1, and Wrnip1 were identified as stably expressed in a model-specific microarray dataset and were further validated as suitable reference genes in an independent qRT-PCR experiment using 2-(Delta CT) and pairwise comparison-based (geNorm) analyses. Parallel analysis of six commonly used reference genes identified Sdha as the only stably expressed candidate in this group. Sdha. Sptbn1, and the geometric mean of Sdha and Sptbn1 each provided accurate normalization of target gene Tgfb1; Gapdh, the least stable candidate gene in our dataset, provided inaccurate normalization and an invalid experimental result. The stable reference genes identified here are suitable for accurate normalization of target gene expression in vocal fold mucosal injury experiments. (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