4.5 Article

An evidence based strategy for normalization of quantitative PCR data from miRNA expression analysis in forensic organ tissue identification

Journal

FORENSIC SCIENCE INTERNATIONAL-GENETICS
Volume 13, Issue -, Pages 217-223

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2014.08.005

Keywords

micro-RNA; Normalization; RT-qPCR; Organ tissue identification; Endogenous references

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Messenger-RNA (mRNA)-based analysis of organ tissues and their differentiation in complex crime stains has recently been introduced as a potential and powerful tool to forensic genetics. Given the notoriously low quality of many forensic samples it seems advisable, though, to substitute mRNA with micro-RNA (miRNA) which is much less susceptible to degradation. However, reliable miRNA detection and quantification using quantitative PCR requires a solid and forensically relevant normalization strategy. In our study we evaluated a panel of 15 carefully selected reference genes for their suitability as endogenous controls in miRNA qPCR normalization in forensically relevant settings. We analyzed assay performances and expression variances in 35 individual samples and mixtures thereof integrating highly standardized protocols with contemporary methodologies and included several well-established computational algorithms. Based on these empirical results, we recommend SNORD48, SNORD24, and RNU6-2 as endogenous references since these exhibit the most stable expression levels and the least expected variation among the evaluated candidate reference genes in the given set of forensically relevant organ tissues including skin. To account for the lack of consensus on how best to perform and interpret quantitative PCR experiments, our study's documentation is according to MIQE guidelines, defining the minimum information for publication of quantitative real-time PCR experiments. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. 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