4.6 Article

Normalization genes for mRNA expression in the marine diatom Ditylum brightwellii following exposure to thermal and toxic chemical stresses

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYCOLOGY
卷 25, 期 4, 页码 1101-1109

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10811-012-9908-z

关键词

Diatom; Gene expression; Housekeeping gene; Internal reference; Ditylum brightwellii; Quantitative real-time PCR

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea
  2. Korea government (MEST) [2011-0027480]
  3. Korea Ministry of Environment as The Eco-Innovation Project

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Toxicity assessments using the diatom Ditylum brightwellii are well documented; however, analysis of their toxicogenomics has been little attempted. Currently, quantitative real-time PCR is the most accurate and widely applied method to detect differential gene expression, including that of specific genes induced by environmental contaminants. This method requires internal reference genes to normalize expression levels, and their selection is a critical factor for the correct analysis of the results. Here, we assessed the gene expression stability of nine housekeeping genes (HKGs), including 18S rRNA, ACT, TUA, EF2, MDH, UBQ, UCE, PCNA, and GAPDH, in 28 RNA samples of D. brightwellii. All the tested HKGs displayed different expression patterns under different experimental conditions such as heat shock and exposure to metals and non-metals. Analysis of C (T) values showed that at least two genes were required for proper normalization according to the tested conditions. Overall, TUA, followed by ACT, was the most stable gene under all conditions. Furthermore, we examined the expression of the HSP70 gene in D. brightwellii when exposed to heat shock and chemicals by using the most stable references and found that the gene was significantly up-regulated during the stress period. This study has evaluated, for the first time, the normalization genes in D. brightwellii, providing potential references for gene expression studies of diatoms.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据