4.6 Article

Selection of Reference Genes for Expression Studies in Diaphorina citri (Hemiptera: Liviidae)

期刊

JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC ENTOMOLOGY
卷 110, 期 6, 页码 2623-2629

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/jee/tox253

关键词

developmental stages; host; normalizers; psyllid; RT-qPCR

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Asian citrus psyllid, Diaphorina citri Kuwayama (Hemiptera: Liviidae), is considered the main vector of the bacteria associated with huanglongbing, a very serious disease that has threatened the world citrus industry. The absence of efficient control management protocols, including a lack of resistant cultivars, has led to the development of different approaches to study this pathosystem. The production of resistant genotypes relies on D. citri gene expression analyses by RT-qPCR to assess control of the vector population. High-quality, reliable RT-qPCR analyses depend upon proper reference gene selection and validation. However, adequate D. citri reference genes have not yet been identified. In the present study, we evaluated the genes EF 1-alpha, ACT, GAPDH, RPL7, RPL17, and TUB as candidate reference genes for this insect. Gene expression stability was evaluated using the mathematical algorithms deltaCt, NormFinder, BestKeeper, and geNorm, at five insect developmental stages, grown on two different plant hosts [Citrus sinensis (L.) Osbeck (Sapindales: Rutaceae) and Murraya paniculata (L.) Jack (Sapindales: Rutaceae)]. The final gene ranking was calculated using RefFinder software, and the V-ATPase-A gene was selected for validation. According to our results, two reference genes are recommended when different plant hosts and developmental stages are considered. Considering gene expression studies in D. citri grown on M. paniculata, regardless of the insect developmental stage, GAPDH and RPL7 have the best fit as reference genes in RT-qPCR analyses, whereas GAPDH and EF 1-alpha are recommended as reference genes in insect studies using C. sinensis.

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