Y Kılıç1, A Ç Çelebiler, M Sakızlı. 1. Department of Medical Biology and Genetics, Faculty of Medicine, Dokuz Eylül University, Konak, İzmir, Turkey, yk@genodigm.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The common reference genes of choice in relative gene expression studies based on quantitative real time polymerase chain reaction, ACTB and B2M, were shown to be regulated differently in respect to tissue type. In this study, the stability of the selected housekeeping genes for normalizing the qPCR data were identified in the tumor and its adjacent tissues in invasive breast cancer, and the variability of their levels according to the stages and the histopathologic subtypes was analyzed. METHODS: Four housekeeping genes: PUM1, RPL13A, B2M, and ACTB were analyzed in 99 surgically excised tissue specimens (50 tumor, 45 tumor adjacent and 4 normal breast tissues). Three of the most common softwares (GeNorm, NormFinder, and BestKeeper) were used for calculation purposes. RESULTS: When all of the tissue samples were included in analyses, PUM1 was the most stable gene according to calculations made with both NormFinder and BestKeeper; while PUM1/RPL13A combination was the most stable by GeNorm software. The PUM1 gene was also identified as the most stable gene among the four in all sample groups (in both Estrogen Receptor positive and Estrogen Receptor negative subgroups of invasive breast carcinoma and in normal breast tissue) according to calculations made using the NormFinder software. CONCLUSION: While suggesting PUM1 is one of the most stable single gene and the PUM1/RPL13A pair as one of the best housekeeping genes for the normalization of expression studies in invasive breast tumor studies, it will be more practical to evaluate stability once more and decide upon the reference gene accordingly within the sample group itself.
OBJECTIVE: The common reference genes of choice in relative gene expression studies based on quantitative real time polymerase chain reaction, ACTB and B2M, were shown to be regulated differently in respect to tissue type. In this study, the stability of the selected housekeeping genes for normalizing the qPCR data were identified in the tumor and its adjacent tissues in invasive breast cancer, and the variability of their levels according to the stages and the histopathologic subtypes was analyzed. METHODS: Four housekeeping genes: PUM1, RPL13A, B2M, and ACTB were analyzed in 99 surgically excised tissue specimens (50 tumor, 45 tumor adjacent and 4 normal breast tissues). Three of the most common softwares (GeNorm, NormFinder, and BestKeeper) were used for calculation purposes. RESULTS: When all of the tissue samples were included in analyses, PUM1 was the most stable gene according to calculations made with both NormFinder and BestKeeper; while PUM1/RPL13A combination was the most stable by GeNorm software. The PUM1 gene was also identified as the most stable gene among the four in all sample groups (in both Estrogen Receptor positive and Estrogen Receptor negative subgroups of invasive breast carcinoma and in normal breast tissue) according to calculations made using the NormFinder software. CONCLUSION: While suggesting PUM1 is one of the most stable single gene and the PUM1/RPL13A pair as one of the best housekeeping genes for the normalization of expression studies in invasive breast tumor studies, it will be more practical to evaluate stability once more and decide upon the reference gene accordingly within the sample group itself.
Authors: Reza Khoshnoud; Qimin He; Maria Sylván; Aida Khoshnoud; Madleen Ivarsson; Tommy Fornander; Jonas Bergh; Jan Frisell; Lars-Erik Rutqvist; Sven Skog Journal: Int J Mol Med Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 4.101
Authors: Jacques B de Kok; Rian W Roelofs; Belinda A Giesendorf; Jeroen L Pennings; Erwin T Waas; Ton Feuth; Dorine W Swinkels; Paul N Span Journal: Lab Invest Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 5.662
Authors: Andrew Tutt; Alice Wang; Charles Rowland; Cheryl Gillett; Kit Lau; Karen Chew; Hongyue Dai; Shirley Kwok; Kenneth Ryder; Henry Shu; Robert Springall; Paul Cane; Blair McCallie; Lauren Kam-Morgan; Steve Anderson; Horst Buerger; Joe Gray; James Bennington; Laura Esserman; Trevor Hastie; Samuel Broder; John Sninsky; Burkhard Brandt; Fred Waldman Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2008-11-21 Impact factor: 4.430
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: Bin Bao; Emily A Teslow; Cristina Mitrea; Julie L Boerner; Greg Dyson; Aliccia Bollig-Fischer Journal: Mol Cancer Res Date: 2020-09-10 Impact factor: 5.852
Authors: Piotr M Wierzbicki; Jakub Klacz; Agnieszka Rybarczyk; Tomasz Slebioda; Marcin Stanislawowski; Agata Wronska; Anna Kowalczyk; Marcin Matuszewski; Zbigniew Kmiec Journal: Tumour Biol Date: 2014-09-16