BACKGROUND: Epstein-Barr virus-transformed lymphoblastoid cell lines (EBV-LCLs) and skin fibroblasts are often used to establish or confirm the effect of mutations on gene expression levels. Relative quantification of gene expression is usually achieved by comparison of the expression level of a gene of interest with that of a suitable reference gene. Hence, the choice of reference gene is critical in all experiments that require normalization of expression data. METHODS: For normalization of gene expression levels in both EBV-LCLs and skin fibroblasts, we compared six common reference genes (ACTB, GAPDH, GUSB, HPRT1, PPIB, and TFRC) with six alternative reference genes (CLK2, COPS5, PCYT1A, RAD51L1, RNF10, and RNF111). The alternative genes were selected on the basis of their stability in expression levels in EBV-LCLs according to microarray data. The 12 genes were ranked according to stability in expression levels based on the standard deviation (SD) of the cycle threshold (Ct), geNorm, NormFinder, and the SD of the comparative cycle threshold (DeltaDeltaCt). In addition, we predicted the validity of an observed difference in expression level of a gene of interest between two samples when a specific reference gene is used. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: In our dataset, GUSB and CLK2 were the best choices as reference genes for EBV-LCLs and fibroblasts, respectively. For almost all reference genes, expression level differences of <2-fold between two samples were most likely not significant (p > 0.05). GAPDH for EBV-LCLs and GAPDH and HPRT1 for fibroblasts should not be used for normalization in these cell lines because of their variability in expression levels.
BACKGROUND:Epstein-Barr virus-transformed lymphoblastoid cell lines (EBV-LCLs) and skin fibroblasts are often used to establish or confirm the effect of mutations on gene expression levels. Relative quantification of gene expression is usually achieved by comparison of the expression level of a gene of interest with that of a suitable reference gene. Hence, the choice of reference gene is critical in all experiments that require normalization of expression data. METHODS: For normalization of gene expression levels in both EBV-LCLs and skin fibroblasts, we compared six common reference genes (ACTB, GAPDH, GUSB, HPRT1, PPIB, and TFRC) with six alternative reference genes (CLK2, COPS5, PCYT1A, RAD51L1, RNF10, and RNF111). The alternative genes were selected on the basis of their stability in expression levels in EBV-LCLs according to microarray data. The 12 genes were ranked according to stability in expression levels based on the standard deviation (SD) of the cycle threshold (Ct), geNorm, NormFinder, and the SD of the comparative cycle threshold (DeltaDeltaCt). In addition, we predicted the validity of an observed difference in expression level of a gene of interest between two samples when a specific reference gene is used. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: In our dataset, GUSB and CLK2 were the best choices as reference genes for EBV-LCLs and fibroblasts, respectively. For almost all reference genes, expression level differences of <2-fold between two samples were most likely not significant (p > 0.05). GAPDH for EBV-LCLs and GAPDH and HPRT1 for fibroblasts should not be used for normalization in these cell lines because of their variability in expression levels.
Authors: Kristine Freude; Kirsten Hoffmann; Lars-Riff Jensen; Martin B Delatycki; Vincent des Portes; Bettina Moser; Ben Hamel; Hans van Bokhoven; Claude Moraine; Jean-Pierre Fryns; Jamel Chelly; Jozef Gécz; Steffen Lenzner; Vera M Kalscheuer; Hans-Hilger Ropers Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2004-05-25 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: R Roepman; N Bernoud-Hubac; D E Schick; A Maugeri; W Berger; H H Ropers; F P Cremers; P A Ferreira Journal: Hum Mol Genet Date: 2000-09-01 Impact factor: 6.150
Authors: Pia Huusko; Damaris Ponciano-Jackson; Maija Wolf; Jeff A Kiefer; David O Azorsa; Sukru Tuzmen; Don Weaver; Christiane Robbins; Tracy Moses; Minna Allinen; Sampsa Hautaniemi; Yidong Chen; Abdel Elkahloun; Mark Basik; G Steven Bova; Lukas Bubendorf; Alessandro Lugli; Guido Sauter; Johanna Schleutker; Hilmi Ozcelik; Sabine Elowe; Tony Pawson; Jeffrey M Trent; John D Carpten; Olli-P Kallioniemi; Spyro Mousses Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2004-08-08 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Jo Vandesompele; Katleen De Preter; Filip Pattyn; Bruce Poppe; Nadine Van Roy; Anne De Paepe; Frank Speleman Journal: Genome Biol Date: 2002-06-18 Impact factor: 13.583
Authors: Fernando Gómez-Herreros; Janneke H M Schuurs-Hoeijmakers; Mark McCormack; Marie T Greally; Stuart Rulten; Rocío Romero-Granados; Timothy J Counihan; Elijah Chaila; Judith Conroy; Sean Ennis; Norman Delanty; Felipe Cortés-Ledesma; Arjan P M de Brouwer; Gianpiero L Cavalleri; Sherif F El-Khamisy; Bert B A de Vries; Keith W Caldecott Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2014-03-23 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Maria J Nabais Sá; Geniver El Tekle; Arjan P M de Brouwer; Sarah L Sawyer; Daniela Del Gaudio; Michael J Parker; Farah Kanani; Marie-José H van den Boogaard; Koen van Gassen; Margot I Van Allen; Klaas Wierenga; Gabriela Purcarin; Ellen Roy Elias; Amber Begtrup; Jennifer Keller-Ramey; Tiziano Bernasocchi; Laurens van de Wiel; Christian Gilissen; Hanka Venselaar; Rolph Pfundt; Lisenka E L M Vissers; Jean-Philippe P Theurillat; Bert B A de Vries Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2020-02-27 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Annemieke J M H Verkerk; Shimriet Zeidler; Guido Breedveld; Lydia Overbeek; Daphne Huigh; Linda Koster; Herma van der Linde; Celine de Esch; Lies-Anne Severijnen; Bert B A de Vries; Sigrid M A Swagemakers; Rob Willemsen; A Jeannette M Hoogeboom; Peter J van der Spek; Ben A Oostra Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2018-01-26 Impact factor: 4.246
Authors: Arjan P M de Brouwer; Sander B Nabuurs; Ingrid E C Verhaart; Astrid R Oudakker; Roel Hordijk; Helger G Yntema; Jannet M Hordijk-Hos; Krysta Voesenek; Bert B A de Vries; Ton van Essen; Wei Chen; Hao Hu; Jamel Chelly; Johan T den Dunnen; Vera M Kalscheuer; Annemieke M Aartsma-Rus; Ben C J Hamel; Hans van Bokhoven; Tjitske Kleefstra Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2013-07-31 Impact factor: 4.246
Authors: Arjan P M de Brouwer; Kelly L Williams; John A Duley; André B P van Kuilenburg; Sander B Nabuurs; Michael Egmont-Petersen; Dorien Lugtenberg; Lida Zoetekouw; Martijn J G Banning; Melissa Roeffen; Ben C J Hamel; Linda Weaving; Robert A Ouvrier; Jennifer A Donald; Ron A Wevers; John Christodoulou; Hans van Bokhoven Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2007-08-03 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Joannes F M Jacobs; Hans van Bokhoven; Frank N van Leeuwen; Christina A Hulsbergen-van de Kaa; I Jolanda M de Vries; Gosse J Adema; Peter M Hoogerbrugge; Arjan P M de Brouwer Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2009-07-18 Impact factor: 4.430