4.7 Article

Selection of reference genes for RT-qPCR analysis in a predatory biological control agent, Coleomegilla maculata (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae)

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 5, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/srep18201

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture
  2. Biotechnology Risk Assessment [3048108827]
  3. Special Fund for Agroscience Research in the Public Interest from China [201303028]
  4. Hunan Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China [14JJ6058]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Reverse transcriptase-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) is a reliable technique for quantifying gene expression across various biological processes, of which requires a set of suited reference genes to normalize the expression data. Coleomegilla maculata (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), is one of the most extensively used biological control agents in the field to manage arthropod pest species. In this study, expression profiles of 16 housekeeping genes selected from C. maculata were cloned and investigated. The performance of these candidates as endogenous controls under specific experimental conditions was evaluated by dedicated algorithms, including geNorm, Normfinder, BestKeeper, and Delta Ct method. In addition, RefFinder, a comprehensive platform integrating all the above-mentioned algorithms, ranked the overall stability of these candidate genes. As a result, various sets of suitable reference genes were recommended specifically for experiments involving different tissues, developmental stages, sex, and C. maculate larvae treated with dietary double stranded RNA. This study represents the critical first step to establish a standardized RT-qPCR protocol for the functional genomics research in a ladybeetle C. maculate. Furthermore, it lays the foundation for conducting ecological risk assessment of RNAi-based gene silencing biotechnologies on non-target organisms; in this case, a key predatory biological control agent.

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

4.7
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