4.7 Article

Housekeeping in Tephritid insects: the best gene choice for expression analyses in the medfly and the olive fly

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/srep45634

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Union (ESF)
  2. Greek national funds through the Operational Program Education and Lifelong Learning of the National Strategic Reference Framework Research Funding Program: Heracleitus II, Investing in knowledge society through the European Social Fund
  3. State of California Specialty Crops Block Grant Program award [SCB10037]
  4. Department of Biochemistry and Biotechnology of the University of Thessaly

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Real-time quantitative-PCR has been a priceless tool for gene expression analyses. The reaction, however, needs proper normalization with the use of housekeeping genes (HKGs), whose expression remains stable throughout the experimental conditions. Often, the combination of several genes is required for accurate normalization. Most importantly, there are no universal HKGs which can be used since their expression varies among different organisms, tissues or experimental conditions. In the present study, nine common HKGs (RPL19, tbp, ubx, GAPDH, alpha-TUB, beta-TUB, 14-3-3zeta, RPE and actin3) are evaluated in thirteen different body parts, developmental stages and reproductive and olfactory tissues of two insects of agricultural importance, the medfly and the olive fly. Three software programs based on different algorithms were used (geNorm, NormFinder and BestKeeper) and gave different ranking of HKG stabilities. This confirms once again that the stability of common HKGs should not be taken for granted and demonstrates the caution that is needed in the choice of the appropriate HKGs. Finally, by estimating the average of a standard score of the stability values resulted by the three programs we were able to provide a useful consensus key for the choice of the best HKG combination in various tissues of the two insects.

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