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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sagri, Efthimia, Koskinioti, Panagiota, Gregoriou, Maria-Eleni, Tsoumani, Konstantina T., Bassiakos, Yiannis C., Mathiopoulos, Kostas D.
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