4.6 Article

Identification and validation of reference genes for normalization of gene expression analysis using qRT-PCR in Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)

期刊

GENE
卷 555, 期 2, 页码 393-402

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.gene.2014.11.038

关键词

Helicoverpa armigera; Reference gene; qRT-PCR analysis; Normalization; Biotic conditions; Abiotic conditions

资金

  1. Major State Basic Research Development Program of China (973 Program) [2012CB114103]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Recent studies have focused on determining functional genes and microRNAs in the pest Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Most of these studies used quantitative real-time PCR (qRT-PCR). Suitable reference genes are necessary to normalize gene expression data of qRT-PCR. However, a comprehensive study on the reference genes in H. armigera remains lacking. Results: Twelve candidate reference genes of H. armigera were selected and evaluated for their expression stability under different biotic and abiotic conditions. The comprehensive stability ranking of candidate reference genes was recommended by RefFinder and the optimal number of reference genes was calculated by geNorm. Two target genes, thioredoxin (TRX) and Cu/Zn superoxide dismutase (SOD), were used to validate the selection of reference genes. Results showed that the most suitable candidate combinations of reference genes were as follows: 285 and RPS15 for developmental stages; RPS15 and RPL13 for larvae tissues; EF and RP127 for adult tissues; GAPDH, RPL27, and beta-TUB for nuclear polyhedrosis virus infection; RPS15 and RPL32 for insecticide treatment; RPS15 and RPL27 for temperature treatment; and RPL32, RPS15, and RPL27 for all samples. Conclusion: This study not only establishes an accurate method for normalizing qRT-PCR data in H. armigera but also serve as a reference for further study on gene transcription in H. armigera and other insects. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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