4.7 Article

Reference Gene Selection for RT-qPCR Analysis in Maize Kernels Inoculated with Aspergillus flavus

期刊

TOXINS
卷 13, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/toxins13060386

关键词

candidate gene; gene expression; aflatoxin

资金

  1. U.S. Department of Agriculture, the joint U.S. Department of Agriculture/USAID Feed the Future Initiative
  2. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the stability of six candidate reference genes for normalizing gene expression levels in maize kernels responding to A. flavus inoculation and wounding. The analysis revealed that ACT1, EFI alpha, and eIF4A2 were the most stable genes for this purpose.
Resistance against infection by the fungus Aspergillus flavus Link in commercial maize (Zea mays L.) is the topic of many studies, but few studies have investigated the effects of A. flavus infection on gene expression levels in ear kernels. A crucial component of gene expression profiling by RT-qPCR is having a reliable set of reference genes that show relatively constant expression across the treatments and phenotypes under study. Currently, however, there is no published information on reference genes suitable for measuring changes in kernel gene expression levels after infection with A. flavus. Thus, in this study, six candidate reference genes (ACT1, beta-Tub2, eIF4A2, TATA, EFI alpha, and GAPDH) were evaluated and ranked according to their expression stability. The genes were amplified from first-strand cDNA samples synthesized from kernels of two susceptible and two resistant maize lines that were either inoculated with A. flavus or water or not inoculated. Three software packages were used to calculate and rank the stability of expression for these genesgeNorm, NormFinder, and BestKeeper. The analysis revealed that the most stable genes to normalize expression levels from maize kernels responding to A. flavus inoculation and wounding were ACT1, EFI alpha, and eIF4A2.

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