4.6 Article

Reference genes selection for quantitative gene expression studies in tea green leafhoppers, Empoasca onukii Matsuda

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 13, Issue 10, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0205182

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Special Fund for Agro-scientific Research in the Public Interest [201403030]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31772180, 31471784]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Empoasca onukii Matsuda is one of the most devastating pests of the tea plant (Camellia sinensis). Still, the presumed expression stability of its reference genes (RGs) has not been analyzed. RGs are essential for accurate and reliable gene expression analysis, so this absence has hampered the study of the insect's molecular biology. To find candidate RGs for normalizing gene expression data, we cloned ten common housekeeping genes from E. onukii. Using the Delta Ct method, geNorm, NormFinder and BestKeeper, we screened the RGs that were appropriate for quantifying the mRNA transcription of cellular responses under five experimental conditions. We identified the combinations of alpha-TUB and G6PDH, alpha-TUB and UBC, two RGs (alpha-TUB and beta-TUB1) or three RGs (alpha-TUB, RPL13 and GAPDH), AK and UBC, or RPL13 and alpha-TUB as the best for analyzing gene expression in E. onukii adults of both sexes in different tissues, nymphs at different developmental stages, nymphs exposed to different temperatures or nymphs exposed to photoperiod stress. Finally, the E. onukii cysteine proteinase (Eocyp) was chosen as the target gene to validate the rationality of the proposed RGs. In conclusion, our study suggests a series of RGs with which to study the gene expression profiles of E. onukii that have been manipulated (biotically or abiotically) using reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction. The results offer a solid foundation for further studies of the molecular biology of E. onukii.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available