4.7 Article

Selecting a set of housekeeping genes for quantitative real-time PCR in normal and tetraploid haemocytes of soft-shell clams, Mya arenaria

期刊

FISH & SHELLFISH IMMUNOLOGY
卷 25, 期 3, 页码 202-207

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fsi.2008.04.006

关键词

Mya arenaria; tetraploidy; haemocytes; housekeeping genes; normalization

资金

  1. Canada Research Chairs (CRC)
  2. AquaNet program
  3. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) scholarship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The transcripts involved in the molecular mechanisms of haemic neoplasia in relation to the haemocyte ploidy status of the soft-shell clam, Mya arenaria, have yet to be identified. For this purpose, real-time quantitative RT-PCR constitutes a sensitive and efficient technique, which can help determine the gene expression involved in haemocyte tetraploid status in clams affected by haemic neoplasia. One of the critical steps in comparing transcription profiles is the stability of selected housekeeping genes, as well as an accurate normalization. In this study, we selected five reference genes, S18, L37, EF1, EF2 and actin, generally used as single control genes. Their expression was analyzed by real-time quantitative RT-PCR at different levels of haemocyte ploidy status in order to select the most stable genes. Using the geNorm software, our results showed that L37, EF1 and S18 represent the most stable gene expressions related to various ploidy status ranging from 0 to 78% of tetraploid haemocytes in clams sampled in North River (Prince Edward Island, Canada). However, actin gene expression appeared to be highly regulated. Hence, using it as a housekeeping gene in tetraploid haemocytes can result in inaccurate data. To compare gene expression levels related to haemocyte ploidy status in Mya arenaria, using L37, EF1 and S18 as housekeeping genes for accurate normalization is therefore recommended. Crown Copyright (c) 2008 Published by Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.7
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