Cargando…
Housekeeping in Tephritid insects: the best gene choice for expression analyses in the medfly and the olive fly
Real-time quantitative-PCR has been a priceless tool for gene expression analyses. The reaction, however, needs proper normalization with the use of housekeeping genes (HKGs), whose expression remains stable throughout the experimental conditions. Often, the combination of several genes is required...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5377319/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28368031 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep45634 |
_version_ | 1782519291413790720 |
---|---|
author | Sagri, Efthimia Koskinioti, Panagiota Gregoriou, Maria-Eleni Tsoumani, Konstantina T. Bassiakos, Yiannis C. Mathiopoulos, Kostas D. |
author_facet | Sagri, Efthimia Koskinioti, Panagiota Gregoriou, Maria-Eleni Tsoumani, Konstantina T. Bassiakos, Yiannis C. Mathiopoulos, Kostas D. |
author_sort | Sagri, Efthimia |
collection | PubMed |
description | Real-time quantitative-PCR has been a priceless tool for gene expression analyses. The reaction, however, needs proper normalization with the use of housekeeping genes (HKGs), whose expression remains stable throughout the experimental conditions. Often, the combination of several genes is required for accurate normalization. Most importantly, there are no universal HKGs which can be used since their expression varies among different organisms, tissues or experimental conditions. In the present study, nine common HKGs (RPL19, tbp, ubx, GAPDH, α-TUB, β-TUB, 14-3-3zeta, RPE and actin3) are evaluated in thirteen different body parts, developmental stages and reproductive and olfactory tissues of two insects of agricultural importance, the medfly and the olive fly. Three software programs based on different algorithms were used (geNorm, NormFinder and BestKeeper) and gave different ranking of HKG stabilities. This confirms once again that the stability of common HKGs should not be taken for granted and demonstrates the caution that is needed in the choice of the appropriate HKGs. Finally, by estimating the average of a standard score of the stability values resulted by the three programs we were able to provide a useful consensus key for the choice of the best HKG combination in various tissues of the two insects. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5377319 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-53773192017-04-10 Housekeeping in Tephritid insects: the best gene choice for expression analyses in the medfly and the olive fly Sagri, Efthimia Koskinioti, Panagiota Gregoriou, Maria-Eleni Tsoumani, Konstantina T. Bassiakos, Yiannis C. Mathiopoulos, Kostas D. Sci Rep Article Real-time quantitative-PCR has been a priceless tool for gene expression analyses. The reaction, however, needs proper normalization with the use of housekeeping genes (HKGs), whose expression remains stable throughout the experimental conditions. Often, the combination of several genes is required for accurate normalization. Most importantly, there are no universal HKGs which can be used since their expression varies among different organisms, tissues or experimental conditions. In the present study, nine common HKGs (RPL19, tbp, ubx, GAPDH, α-TUB, β-TUB, 14-3-3zeta, RPE and actin3) are evaluated in thirteen different body parts, developmental stages and reproductive and olfactory tissues of two insects of agricultural importance, the medfly and the olive fly. Three software programs based on different algorithms were used (geNorm, NormFinder and BestKeeper) and gave different ranking of HKG stabilities. This confirms once again that the stability of common HKGs should not be taken for granted and demonstrates the caution that is needed in the choice of the appropriate HKGs. Finally, by estimating the average of a standard score of the stability values resulted by the three programs we were able to provide a useful consensus key for the choice of the best HKG combination in various tissues of the two insects. Nature Publishing Group 2017-04-03 /pmc/articles/PMC5377319/ /pubmed/28368031 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep45634 Text en Copyright © 2017, The Author(s) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ |
spellingShingle | Article Sagri, Efthimia Koskinioti, Panagiota Gregoriou, Maria-Eleni Tsoumani, Konstantina T. Bassiakos, Yiannis C. Mathiopoulos, Kostas D. Housekeeping in Tephritid insects: the best gene choice for expression analyses in the medfly and the olive fly |
title | Housekeeping in Tephritid insects: the best gene choice for expression analyses in the medfly and the olive fly |
title_full | Housekeeping in Tephritid insects: the best gene choice for expression analyses in the medfly and the olive fly |
title_fullStr | Housekeeping in Tephritid insects: the best gene choice for expression analyses in the medfly and the olive fly |
title_full_unstemmed | Housekeeping in Tephritid insects: the best gene choice for expression analyses in the medfly and the olive fly |
title_short | Housekeeping in Tephritid insects: the best gene choice for expression analyses in the medfly and the olive fly |
title_sort | housekeeping in tephritid insects: the best gene choice for expression analyses in the medfly and the olive fly |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5377319/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28368031 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep45634 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT sagriefthimia housekeepingintephritidinsectsthebestgenechoiceforexpressionanalysesinthemedflyandtheolivefly AT koskiniotipanagiota housekeepingintephritidinsectsthebestgenechoiceforexpressionanalysesinthemedflyandtheolivefly AT gregorioumariaeleni housekeepingintephritidinsectsthebestgenechoiceforexpressionanalysesinthemedflyandtheolivefly AT tsoumanikonstantinat housekeepingintephritidinsectsthebestgenechoiceforexpressionanalysesinthemedflyandtheolivefly AT bassiakosyiannisc housekeepingintephritidinsectsthebestgenechoiceforexpressionanalysesinthemedflyandtheolivefly AT mathiopouloskostasd housekeepingintephritidinsectsthebestgenechoiceforexpressionanalysesinthemedflyandtheolivefly |