4.5 Article

Selection of appropriate reference genes for gene expression studies by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction in cucumber

期刊

ANALYTICAL BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 399, 期 2, 页码 257-261

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ab.2009.12.008

关键词

Real-time PCR; Reference gene; geNorm; NormFinder; BestKeeper; Cucumber

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [30830079, 30671419, 30700541]
  2. 863 Programs [2008AA10Z150, 2006AA10Z1A8, 2006AA100108]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (QRT-PCR) has become one of the most widely used methods for gene expression analysis. However, the expression profile of a target gene may be misinterpreted due to unstable expression of the reference genes under different experimental conditions. Thus, a systematic evaluation of these reference genes is necessary before experiments are performed. In this study, 10 putative reference genes were chosen for identifying expression stability using geNorm, NormFinder, and BestKeeper statistical algorithms in 12 different cucumber sample pools, including those from different plant tissues and from plants treated with hormones and abiotic stresses. EF1 alpha and UBI-ep exhibited the most stable expression across all of the tested cucumber samples. In different tissues, in addition to expression of EF1 alpha and UBI-ep, the expression of TUA was also stable and was considered as an appropriate reference gene. Evaluation of samples treated with different hormones revealed that TUA and UBI-ep were the most stably expressed genes. However, for abiotic stress treatments, only EF1 alpha showed a relatively stable expression level. In conclusion, TUA, UBI-ep, and EF1 alpha will be particularly helpful for reliable QRT-PCR data normalization in these types of samples. This study also provides guidelines for selecting different reference genes under different conditions. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.5
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