4.6 Article

Identification of Internal Reference Genes for Gene Expression Normalization between the Two Sexes in Dioecious White Campion

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 9, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0092893

关键词

-

资金

  1. SNF [31003A_141260]
  2. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [31003A_141260] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Quantitative real time (qRT)-PCR is a precise and efficient method for studying gene expression changes between two states of interest, and is frequently used for validating interesting gene expression patterns in candidate genes initially identified in genome-wide expression analyses, such as RNA-seq experiments. For an adequate normalisation of qRT-PCR data, it is essential to have reference genes available whose expression intensities are constant among the different states of interest. In this study we present and validate a catalogue of traditional and newly identified reference genes that were selected from RNA-seq data from multiple individuals from the dioecious plant Silene latifolia with the aim of studying gene expression differences between the two sexes in both reproductive and vegetative tissues. The catalogue contains more than 15 reference genes with both stable expression intensities and a range of expression intensities in flower buds and leaf tissues. These reference genes were used to normalize expression differences between reproductive and vegetative tissues in eight candidate genes with sex-biased expression. Our results suggest a trend towards a reduced sex-bias in sex-linked gene expression in vegetative tissues. In this study, we report on the systematic identification and validation of internal reference genes for adequate normalization of qRT-PCR-based analyses of gene expression differences between the two sexes in S. latifolia. We also show how RNA-seq data can be used efficiently to identify suitable reference genes in a wide diversity of species.

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