4.5 Article

Identification and validation of suitable reference genes for RT-qPCR analysis in mouse testis development

Journal

MOLECULAR GENETICS AND GENOMICS
Volume 289, Issue 6, Pages 1157-1169

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00438-014-0877-6

Keywords

Mouse testis development; Reference gene; RT-qPCR; geNorm; NormFinder; Bestkeeper; Comparative delta C-t method; RefFinder

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81160263]
  2. Scientific Research Fund of Guangxi Education Department [200103YB025]
  3. Guangxi Natural Science Foundation Program [2010GXNSFA013162]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

RT-qPCR is a commonly used method for evaluating gene expression; however, its accuracy and reliability are dependent upon the choice of appropriate reference gene(s), and there is limited information available on suitable reference gene(s) that can be used in mouse testis at different stages. In this study, using the RT-qPCR method, we investigated the expression variations of six reference genes representing different functional classes (Actb, Gapdh, Ppia, Tbp, Rps29, Hprt1) in mice testis during embryonic and postnatal development. The expression stabilities of putative reference genes were evaluated using five algorithms: geNorm, NormFinder, Bestkeeper, the comparative delta C (t) method and integrated tool RefFinder. Analysis of the results showed that Ppia, Gapdh and Actb were identified as the most stable genes and the geometric mean of Ppia, Gapdh and Actb constitutes an appropriate normalization factor for gene expression studies. The mRNA expression of AT1 as a test gene of interest varied depending upon which of the reference gene(s) was used as an internal control(s). This study suggested that Ppia, Gapdh and Actb are suitable reference genes among the six genes used for RT-qPCR normalization and provide crucial information for transcriptional analyses in future studies of gene expression in the developing mouse testis.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available