R N Sharan1, S Thangminlal Vaiphei2, Saibadaiahun Nongrum2, Joshua Keppen2, Mandahakani Ksoo2. 1. Radiation and Molecular Biology Unit, Department of Biochemistry, North-Eastern Hill University (NEHU), Shillong, 793022, India. rnsharan@nehu.ac.in. 2. Radiation and Molecular Biology Unit, Department of Biochemistry, North-Eastern Hill University (NEHU), Shillong, 793022, India.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Gene expression studies are increasingly used to provide valuable information on the diagnosis and prognosis of human cancers. Also, for in vitro and in vivo experimental cancer models gene expression studies are widely used. The complex algorithms of differential gene expression analyses require normalization of data against a reference or normalizer gene, or a set of such genes. For this purpose, mostly invariant housekeeping genes are used. Unfortunately, however, there are no consensus (housekeeping) genes that serve as reference or normalizer for different human cancers. In fact, scientists have employed a wide range of reference genes across different types of cancer for normalization of gene expression data. As a consequence, comparisons of these data and/or data harmonizations are difficult to perform and challenging. In addition, an inadequate choice for a reference gene may obscure genuine changes and/or result in erroneous gene expression data comparisons. METHODS: In our effort to highlight the importance of selecting the most appropriate reference gene(s), we have screened the literature for gene expression studies published since the turn of the century on thirteen of the most prevalent human cancers worldwide. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the analysis of the data at hand, we firstly recommend that in each study the suitability of candidate reference gene(s) should carefully be evaluated in order to yield reliable differential gene expression data. Secondly, we recommend that a combination of PPIA and either GAPDH, ACTB, HPRT and TBP, or appropriate combinations of two or three of these genes, should be employed in future studies, to ensure that results from different studies on different human cancers can be harmonized. This approach will ultimately increase the depth of our understanding of gene expression signatures across human cancers.
BACKGROUND: Gene expression studies are increasingly used to provide valuable information on the diagnosis and prognosis of humancancers. Also, for in vitro and in vivo experimental cancer models gene expression studies are widely used. The complex algorithms of differential gene expression analyses require normalization of data against a reference or normalizer gene, or a set of such genes. For this purpose, mostly invariant housekeeping genes are used. Unfortunately, however, there are no consensus (housekeeping) genes that serve as reference or normalizer for different humancancers. In fact, scientists have employed a wide range of reference genes across different types of cancer for normalization of gene expression data. As a consequence, comparisons of these data and/or data harmonizations are difficult to perform and challenging. In addition, an inadequate choice for a reference gene may obscure genuine changes and/or result in erroneous gene expression data comparisons. METHODS: In our effort to highlight the importance of selecting the most appropriate reference gene(s), we have screened the literature for gene expression studies published since the turn of the century on thirteen of the most prevalent humancancers worldwide. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the analysis of the data at hand, we firstly recommend that in each study the suitability of candidate reference gene(s) should carefully be evaluated in order to yield reliable differential gene expression data. Secondly, we recommend that a combination of PPIA and either GAPDH, ACTB, HPRT and TBP, or appropriate combinations of two or three of these genes, should be employed in future studies, to ensure that results from different studies on different humancancers can be harmonized. This approach will ultimately increase the depth of our understanding of gene expression signatures across humancancers.
Authors: Alice Vajda; Laure Marignol; Ciara Barrett; Stephen F Madden; Thomas H Lynch; Donal Hollywood; Antoinette S Perry Journal: Prostate Date: 2012-08-27 Impact factor: 4.104
Authors: Guro E Lind; Stine A Danielsen; Terje Ahlquist; Marianne A Merok; Kim Andresen; Rolf I Skotheim; Merete Hektoen; Torleiv O Rognum; Gunn I Meling; Geir Hoff; Michael Bretthauer; Espen Thiis-Evensen; Arild Nesbakken; Ragnhild A Lothe Journal: Mol Cancer Date: 2011-07-21 Impact factor: 27.401
Authors: Michelle A Schultz; Sharika S Hagan; Amrita Datta; Yiguo Zhang; Michael L Freeman; Suresh C Sikka; Asim B Abdel-Mageed; Debasis Mondal Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-01-22 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Lifang Yan; Kathy L Toohey-Kurth; Beate M Crossley; Jianfa Bai; Amy L Glaser; Rebecca L Tallmadge; Laura B Goodman Journal: J Vet Diagn Invest Date: 2019-11-18 Impact factor: 1.279
Authors: P Asiabi; J Ambroise; C Giachini; M E Coccia; B Bearzatto; M C Chiti; M M Dolmans; C A Amorim Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet Date: 2020-07-30 Impact factor: 3.412
Authors: Shu-Qin Li; Ning Su; Ping Gong; Hai-Bo Zhang; Jin Liu; Ding Wang; Yan-Ping Sun; Yan Zhang; Feng Qian; Bo Zhao; Yang Yu; Richard D Ye Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2017-07-19 Impact factor: 4.379