4.5 Article

Reference genes for the relative quantification of microRNAs in renal cell carcinomas and their metastases

Journal

ANALYTICAL BIOCHEMISTRY
Volume 417, Issue 2, Pages 233-241

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ab.2011.06.009

Keywords

MicroRNAs; Reference genes; Renal cell carcinoma; RT-qPCR

Funding

  1. Foundation for Urological Research [BFIU_2010]
  2. SONNENFELD-Stiftung [89838210]
  3. Federal Ministry of Education and Research (MedSys)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To obtain accurate results in miRNA expression changes between different sample sets using real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) analyses, normalization to reference genes that are stably expressed across the sample sets is generally used. A literature search of miRNA expression studies in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) proved that non-miRNAs such as small RNAs or mRNAs have most frequently been used without preceding validation of their suitability. In this study, the most stably expressed miRNAs were ascertained from microarray-based data of miRNA expression in nonmalignant and malignant samples from clear cell RCC and from corresponding distant RCC metastases using the geNorm and NormFinder algorithms. Validation experiments with RT-qPCR were performed for the four best-ranked miRNAs (miR-28, miR-103, miR-106a, miR-151) together with the small RNU6B, RNU44, and RNU48 mostly described in literature. miR-28, miR-103, miR-106a, and RNU48 were proved as the most stably expressed genes. miR-28 is recommended as normalizer if only a single reference gene can be used, while the combinations of miR-28 and miR-103 or of miR-28, miR-103, and miR-106a, respectively, are preferred. RNU6B most frequently used as normalizer in miRNA expression studies should be abandoned in order to avoid misleading results. (C) 2011 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