4.3 Article

Systematic validation of candidate reference genes for qRT-PCR normalization under iron deficiency in Arabidopsis

Journal

BIOMETALS
Volume 26, Issue 3, Pages 403-413

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10534-013-9623-5

Keywords

Arabidopsis; Iron deficiency; Normalization; qRT-PCR; Reference genes

Funding

  1. program sponsored for Scientific Innovation Research of College Graduate in Jiangsu Province [CXZZ12_0268]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [30971711]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A reliable result obtained by qRT-PCR highly depends on accurate transcript normalization using stably expressed reference genes. However, the transcript levels of traditional reference genes are not always stable. Also, the inaccurate normalization could easily lead to the false conclusions. In this report, by using geNorm and NormFinder algorithms, 12 candidate reference genes were evaluated in Arabidopsis under iron deficiency. Our results revealed that three novel reference genes (SAND, YLS8 and TIP41-like) were identified and validated as suitable reference genes for qRT-PCR normalization in both iron deprivation (the addition of Ferrozine to the medium) and starvation (withdrawal of iron from the medium) conditions. This conclusion was also confirmed by publicly available microarray data. In addition, when using SAND, YLS8 and TIP41-like as multiple reference genes, the expression patterns of FIT1 and IRT1, two iron deficiency marker genes, were approximately similar with that reported previously. However, a weaker inducible response was obtained from qRT-PCR by normalizating EF-1 alpha alone. Together, we proposed that the combination of SAND, YLS8 and TIP41-like can be used for accurate normalization of gene expression in iron deficiency research. These results provide a valuable evidence for the importance of adequate reference genes in qRT-PCR normalization, insisting on the use of appropriate reference gene validation in all transcriptional analyses.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available