| Literature DB >> 26441545 |
Deepali Mathur1, Juan R Urena-Peralta2, Gerardo Lopez-Rodas3, Bonaventura Casanova4, Francisco Coret-Ferrer5, Maria Burgal-Marti2.
Abstract
Gene expression studies employing real-time PCR has become an intrinsic part of biomedical research. Appropriate normalization of target gene transcript(s) based on stably expressed housekeeping genes is crucial in individual experimental conditions to obtain accurate results. In multiple sclerosis (MS), several gene expression studies have been undertaken, however, the suitability of housekeeping genes to express stably in this disease is not yet explored. Recent research suggests that their expression level may vary under different experimental conditions. Hence it is indispensible to evaluate their expression stability to accurately normalize target gene transcripts. The present study aims to evaluate the expression stability of seven housekeeping genes in rat granule neurons treated with cerebrospinal fluid of MS patients. The selected reference genes were quantified by real time PCR and their expression stability was assessed using GeNorm and NormFinder algorithms. GeNorm identified transferrin receptor (Tfrc) and microglobulin beta-2 (B2m) the most stable genes followed by ribosomal protein L19 (Rpl19) whereas β-actin (ActB) and glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate-dehydrogenase (Gapdh) the most fluctuated ones in these neurons. NormFinder identified Tfrc as the best invariable gene followed by B2m and Rpl19. ActB and Gapdh were the least stable genes as analyzed by NormFinder algorithm. Both methods reported Tfrc and B2m the most stably expressed genes and Gapdh the least stable one. Altogether our data demonstrate the significance of pre-validation of housekeeping genes for accurate normalization and indicates Tfrc and B2m as best endogenous controls in MS. ActB and Gapdh are not recommended in gene expression studies related to current one.Entities:
Keywords: GeNorm; NormFinder; housekeeping genes; multiple sclerosis; normalization
Year: 2015 PMID: 26441545 PMCID: PMC4585208 DOI: 10.3389/fncel.2015.00375
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Cell Neurosci ISSN: 1662-5102 Impact factor: 5.505
Clinical characteristics of the patients studied.
| Case # | Sex | Working clinical form | Clinical form | Age (years) | Evolution time | Actual EDSS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Female | RRMS (+/-) | RRMS | 23 | 5 | 1.50 |
| 2 | Female | RRMS (+/-) | SPMS | 21 | 18 | 4.00 |
| 3 | Female | RRMS (+/-) | RRMS | 36 | 4 | 1.50 |
| 4 | Male | RRMS (+/-) | RRMS | 22 | 6 | 1.50 |
| 5 | Female | RRMS (+/-) | RRMS | 21 | 3 | 3.00 |
| 6 | Female | RRMS (+/-) | RRMS | 30 | 22 | 4.00 |
| 7 | Female | RRMS (+/-) | RRMS | 29 | 10 | 1.50 |
| 8 | Female | RRMS (+/-) | RRMS | 29 | 7 | 1.50 |
| 9 | Female | RRMS (+/-) | RRMS | 28 | 10 | 5.50 |
| 10 | Female | RRMS (+/-) | RRMS | 28 | 4 | 1.00 |
| 11 | Female | RRMS (+/+) | RRMS | 37 | 7 | 3.50 |
| 12 | Male | RRMS (+/+) | RRMS | 32 | 4 | 1.00 |
| 13 | Female | RRMS (+/+) | RRMS | 44 | 5 | 2.00 |
| 14 | Female | RRMS (+/+) | RRMS | 26 | 5 | 2.00 |
| 15 | Female | RRMS (+/+) | RRMS | 14 | 18 | 3.50 |
| 16 | Male | RRMS (+/+) | RRMS | 25 | 11 | 2.00 |
| 17 | Female | RRMS (+/+) | SPMS | 21 | 25 | 8.50 |
| 18 | Female | RRMS (+/+) | RRMS | 17 | 16 | 2.00 |
| 19 | Female | RRMS (+/+) | SPMS | 23 | 18 | 6.50 |
| 20 | Female | RRMS (+/+) | SPMS | 22 | 5 | 4.00 |
| 21 | Female | RRMS (+/+) | RRMS | 29 | 5 | 2.50 |
| 22 | Male | MedMS | SPMS | 39 | 10 | 4.50 |
| 23 | Female | MedMS | SPMS | 25 | 6 | 7.00 |
| 24 | Female | MedMS | SPMS | 25 | 14 | 8.00 |
| 25 | Male | MedMS | SPMS | 34 | 9 | 6.00 |
| 26 | Male | MedMS | SPMS | 34 | 6 | 6.50 |
| 27 | Female | MedMS | RRMS | 23 | 5 | 4.00 |
| 28 | Female | MedMS | SPMS | 40 | 10 | 7.50 |
| 29 | Female | MedMS | SPMS | 23 | 28 | 6.50 |
| 30 | Female | PPMS | PPMS | 54 | 12 | 7.00 |
| 31 | Male | PPMS | PPMS | 40 | 23 | 6.00 |
| 32 | Female | PPMS | PPMS | 52 | 14 | 5.50 |
| 33 | Female | PPMS | PPMS | 38 | 11 | 5.50 |
| 34 | Male | PPMS | PPMS | 31 | 24 | 6.00 |
| 35 | Female | PPMS | PPMS | 47 | 14 | 5.50 |
| 36 | Male | PPMS | PPMS | 49 | 11 | 6.00 |
| 37 | Female | PPMS | PPMS | 26 | 13 | 6.50 |
| 38 | Female | PPMS | PPMS | 34 | 6 | 5.00 |
| 39 | Female | PPMS | PPMS | 39 | 8 | 8.50 |
| 40 | Male | PPMS | PPMS | 18 | 15 | 8.00 |
| 41 | Female | NMO | NMO | 39 | 5 | 9.00 |
| 42 | Female | NMO | NMO | 50 | 4 | 7.00 |
| 43 | Male | NMO | NMO | 15 | 17 | 4.00 |
| 44 | Male | NMO | NMO | 42 | 5 | 3.50 |
| 45 | Female | NMO | NMO | 22 | 5 | 2.50 |
| 46 | Female | NMO | NMO | 27 | 5 | 2.00 |
| 47 | Male | NMO | NMO | 9 | 14 | 1.00 |
| 48 | Female | NMO | NMO | 8 | 32 | 4.00 |
| 49 | Male | NMO | NMO | 19 | 20 | 8.50 |
| 50 | Male | CONTROL | CONTROL | 23 | NA | NA |
| 51 | Female | CONTROL | CONTROL | 77 | NA | NA |
| 52 | Female | CONTROL | CONTROL | 33 | NA | NA |
| 53 | Female | CONTROL | CONTROL | 32 | NA | NA |
| 54 | Male | CONTROL | CONTROL | 59 | NA | NA |
| 55 | Female | CONTROL | CONTROL | 36 | NA | NA |
| 56 | Female | CONTROL | CONTROL | 57 | NA | NA |
| 57 | Male | CONTROL | CONTROL | 37 | NA | NA |
| 58 | Female | CONTROL | CONTROL | 21 | NA | NA |
| 59 | Male | CONTROL | CONTROL | 13 | NA | NA |
Panel of seven candidate housekeeping genes selected for expression analysis.
| Gene symbol | Gene name | mRNA accession number | Function | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| β-Actin | NM_031144 | Cytoskeletal structural Protein | ||
| Hypoxanthine guanine phosphoribosyl transferase | NM_012583 | Metabolic salvage of purines | ||
| Ribosomal protein L19 | NM_031103 | Unclear | ||
| Lactate dehydrogenase A | NM_017025 | NADH dependent enzyme that catalyzes reduction of pyruvate to lactate | – | |
| Transferrin Receptor | NM_022712 | Iron delivery from transferrin to cells | ||
| Microglobulin-b-2 | NM_012512 | Major histocompatibility complex class I | ||
| Glyceraldehyde-3- phosphate-dehydrogenase | NM_017008 | NAD+ dependent enzyme that catalyzes conversion of glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate to 1,3-bis phosphoglycerate |
General characteristics of series studied.
| Controls ( | MS patients ( | NMO patients ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| % Females ( | 60.0 (6) | 75.0 (30) | 55.6 (5) | 0.40 (χ2) |
| Age (mean, | 40.3 (19.5) | 30.7 (9.7) | 25.6 (15.0) | 0.04 (ANOVA test) |
| EDSS | n.a. | 4.5 (2.3) | 4.6 (2.8) | 0.94 ( |
| Evolution time | n.a. | 11.1 (6.6) | 11.8 (9.7) | 0.79 ( |
Characteristics of MS patients according to the clinical classification.
| RRMS ( | SPMS ( | PPMS ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| % Females (n) | 83.3 (15) | 72.7 (8) | 63.6 (7) | 0.48 (χ2) |
| Age (mean, | 27.3 (7.2) | 27.9 (7.3) | 38.9 (11.2) | 0.003 (ANOVA test) |
| EDSS | 2.4 (1.2) | 6.2 (1.5) | 6.3 (1.1) | <0.001 (ANOVA test) |
| Evolution time | 8.1 (5.4) | 13.5 (7.8) | 13.8 (5.7) | 0.043 (ANOVA test) |
Characteristics of MS patients according to new proposal and working classification.
| Inflammatory MS ( | Medullar MS ( | PPMS ( | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| G+/M- ( | G+/M+ ( | ||||
| % Females ( | 90 (9) | 81.8 (9) | 62.5 (5) | 63.6 (7) | 0.40 (χ2) |
| Age (mean, | 26.7 (4.8) | 26.3 (8.7) | 31.4 (7.0) | 38.9 (11.2) | 0.005 |
| EDSS | 2.5 (1.5) | 3.4 (2.2) | 6.2 (1.4) | 6.3 (1.1) | 0.000 |
| Evolution time | 8.9 (6.3) | 10.8 (5.9) | 8.5 (3.1) | 13.8 (5.7) | 0.154 |
Candidate housekeeping genes ranked in cerebellar granule neurons treated with CSF of MS/NMO patients according to their expression stability by Genorm and Normfinder methods.
| Ranking order | Gene name | Average | Ranking order | Gene name | Stability value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | 1.253 | 4 | 1.102 | ||
| 4 | 1.318 | 5 | 1.379 | ||
| 5 | 2.929 | 6 | 6.099 | ||
| 6 | 4.201 | 7 | 6.953 | ||