4.6 Article

Selection of Suitable Reference Genes for Normalization of Quantitative Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction in Human Cartilage Endplate of the Lumbar Spine

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 9, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0088892

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Fund of China [81301587, 81271971, 81171739, 81101378]
  2. Natural Science Fund of Zhejiang Province [Y2110372, LQ13H060002]
  3. Zhejiang Provincial Program for the Cultivation of High-Level Innovative Health Talents

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) is one of the most widely used methods to study gene expression profiles, and it requires appropriate normalization for accurate and reliable results. Although several genes are commonly used as reference genes (such as GAPDH, ACTB, and 18S rRNA), they are also regulated and can be expressed at varying levels. In this study, we evaluated twelve well-known reference genes to identify the most suitable housekeeping gene for normalization of qRT-PCR in human lumbar vertebral endplate with Modic changes, by using the geNorm, NormFinder, and BestKeeper algorithms. Our results showed that the rarely-used SDHA was the most stable single reference gene, and a combination of three, SDHA, B2M, and LDHA, was the most suitable gene set for normalization in all samples. In addition, the commonly-used genes, GAPDH, ACTB and 18S rRNA, were all inappropriate as internal standards. The rankings of reference genes for the three types of Modic change differed, although SDHA and RPL13A uniformly ranked in the first and last position, respectively. Further simulated expression analysis validated that the arbitrary use of a reference gene could lead to the misinterpretation of data. Our study confirmed the necessity of exploring the expression stability of potential reference genes in each specific tissue and experimental situation before quantitative evaluation of gene expression by qRT-PCR.

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