2012
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2012.04.073
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Validation of differential gene expression in muscle engineered from rat groin adipose tissue by quantitative real-time PCR

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
12
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Currently, however, many common reference genes are used as internal controls without any evaluation of their variance and instability, and most publications only use a single internal control for normalization. These un-validated single reference genes, however, were proved to be not always reliable under various experimental conditions [12][16]. Therefore, more and more biologists pay their attention to the selection and validation of reliable reference gene(s) expressed stably regardless of different experimental conditions from the species they are interested in, in order to avoid unnecessary errors in qRT-PCR analysis.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Currently, however, many common reference genes are used as internal controls without any evaluation of their variance and instability, and most publications only use a single internal control for normalization. These un-validated single reference genes, however, were proved to be not always reliable under various experimental conditions [12][16]. Therefore, more and more biologists pay their attention to the selection and validation of reliable reference gene(s) expressed stably regardless of different experimental conditions from the species they are interested in, in order to avoid unnecessary errors in qRT-PCR analysis.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The most common normalization method is to compare the mRNA level of the target gene with that of a reference gene whose expression level is considered stable regardless of different experimental conditions [7][9]. However, none of the reference genes discovered thus far is consistently expressed in a universal and invariant way under various experimental conditions [10], [11], and recent reference gene selection studies indicate that a single reference gene is generally insufficient to normalize the expression data of all target genes [12][16].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In other study, also did not find stable results for Actb gene from hypothalamus of an obesity rat model [45]. Actb and Gapdh genes were rejected in muscle tissue by qBase, software that uses M-Value to analyze reference genes [26]. In our study, Actb and Gapdh genes were shown to be stable in all tissues analyzed by three different software; the only exception was for mesenteric fat analysis through geNorm, which rejected both genes, along with Hprt1.…”
Section: Genorm Analysismentioning
confidence: 84%
“…In hypothalamus the most stable gene was Actb when comparing two are different, a third reference gene must be used, and, if they are similar, it is not necessary to evaluate a third gene [26]. Dheda et al [27] demonstrated after three experiments with different reference genes that the results can be significantly different from those obtained when an invalidated reference gene is used.…”
Section: Genorm Analysismentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Use of a single housekeeping gene without validation of its stability can lead to a greater than 20-fold error in calculations of gene expression 22. During recent years, a growing number of studies of reference gene suitability have been conducted in humans 29-31, other mammals 32, 33, plants 34-38 as well as arthropods (Table S4). With more and more genomes and transcriptomes available for arthropods, there are at least 45 arthropod species that have been investigated for reference gene identification and selection under diverse experimental conditions.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%