2015
DOI: 10.1007/s00468-015-1311-3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Reference genes selection for quantitative gene expression studies in Pinus massoniana L.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

2
19
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 29 publications
(21 citation statements)
references
References 59 publications
2
19
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, RPL25 demonstrated the highest expression stability across stress-treated samples of Nicotiana tabacum [37]. CYP was identified as the most stable internal control gene in Petunia hybrida [35], insect-resistant leaves of Pinus massoniana L. [11], and GA-treated samples of Stellera chamaejasme [2]. In a study of Pisum sativum, TUB was suitable for normalization under abiotic stress and biotic stress [34].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…However, RPL25 demonstrated the highest expression stability across stress-treated samples of Nicotiana tabacum [37]. CYP was identified as the most stable internal control gene in Petunia hybrida [35], insect-resistant leaves of Pinus massoniana L. [11], and GA-treated samples of Stellera chamaejasme [2]. In a study of Pisum sativum, TUB was suitable for normalization under abiotic stress and biotic stress [34].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Fifteen candidate reference genes were selected for this study, and most of them had been studied previously in different plants such Oryza sativa L. [9], Pinus massoniana L. [11], citrus [33], Pisum sativum [34], Petunia hybrida [35], Linum usitatissimum L. [36], Nicotiana tabacum [37], Camellia sinensis [38], and Populus [39]. In terms of standardization and quality, amplification efficiencies of the candidate reference gene's primer pairs varied from 1.81 to 2.04 ( Table 1).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Their amplification efficiency ranged from 1.22 to 2.86, which is higher than in some species like Davidia involucrata [30], Euphorbia esula [31], Phyllostachys edulis [18], but close to more related species such as Pinus pinaster and Picea abies [29]. Furthermore, recent research has reported both low [32] and high [33] amplification efficiencies for P. massoniana genes. What causes this difference is still poorly understood?…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 82%