4.5 Article

Evaluation of potential reference genes for reverse transcription-qPCR studies of physiological responses in Drosophila melanogaster

期刊

JOURNAL OF INSECT PHYSIOLOGY
卷 57, 期 6, 页码 840-850

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jinsphys.2011.03.014

关键词

Drosophila melanogaster; Heat-shock stress; Injury; Nutrition; RT-qPCR; Reference gene

资金

  1. Human Frontier Science Program
  2. ARC Federation
  3. Laureate Fellowships
  4. Marie-Curie Outgoing Fellowship
  5. ARC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Drosophila melanogaster is one of the most important genetic models and techniques such as reverse transcription quantitative real-time PCR (RT-qPCR) are being employed extensively for deciphering the genetics basis of physiological functions. In RT-qPCR, the expression levels of target genes are estimated on the basis of endogenous controls. The purpose of these reference genes is to control for variations in RNA quantity and quality. Although determination of suitable reference genes is essential to RT-qPCR studies, reports on the evaluation of reference genes in D. melanogaster studies are lacking. We analyzed the expression levels of seven candidate reference genes (Actin, EF1, Mnf, Rps20, Rpl32, Tubulin and 18S) in flies that were injured, heat-stressed, or fed different diets. Statistical analyses of variation were determined using three established software programs for reference gene selection, geNorm, NormFinder and BestKeeper. Best-ranked references genes differed across the treatments. Normalization candidacy of the selected candidate reference genes was supported by an analysis of gene expression values obtained from microarray datasets available online. The differences between the experimental treatments suggest that assessing the stability of reference gene expression patterns, determining candidates and testing their suitability is required for each experimental investigation. Crown Copyright (C) 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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