| Literature DB >> 27375640 |
Jianyang Wu1, Hongna Zhang2, Liqin Liu2, Weicai Li2, Yongzan Wei2, Shengyou Shi2.
Abstract
Reverse transcription quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) as the accurate and sensitive method is use for gene expression analysis, but the veracity and reliability result depends on whether select appropriate reference gene or not. To date, several reliable reference gene validations have been reported in fruits trees, but none have been done on preharvest and postharvest longan fruits. In this study, 12 candidate reference genes, namely, CYP, RPL, GAPDH, TUA, TUB, Fe-SOD, Mn-SOD, Cu/Zn-SOD, 18SrRNA, Actin, Histone H3, and EF-1a, were selected. Expression stability of these genes in 150 longan samples was evaluated and analyzed using geNorm and NormFinder algorithms. Preharvest samples consisted of seven experimental sets, including different developmental stages, organs, hormone stimuli (NAA, 2,4-D, and ethephon) and abiotic stresses (bagging and girdling with defoliation). Postharvest samples consisted of different temperature treatments (4 and 22°C) and varieties. Our findings indicate that appropriate reference gene(s) should be picked for each experimental condition. Our data further showed that the commonly used reference gene Actin does not exhibit stable expression across experimental conditions in longan. Expression levels of the DlACO gene, which is a key gene involved in regulating fruit abscission under girdling with defoliation treatment, was evaluated to validate our findings. In conclusion, our data provide a useful framework for choice of suitable reference genes across different experimental conditions for RT-qPCR analysis of preharvest and postharvest longan fruits.Entities:
Keywords: ACO gene; Longan (Dimocarpus longan Lour.); RT-qPCR; gene expression; normalization; preharvest and postharvest fruits; reference genes
Year: 2016 PMID: 27375640 PMCID: PMC4891570 DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2016.00780
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Plant Sci ISSN: 1664-462X Impact factor: 5.753
Sample sets considered in the present study.
| Different varieties | Pericarp, aril | 110 DAA | “Shixia,” “Chuliang,” “Linglong,” “Gushan,” “Caopushi,” and “Benzhan” | 3 | 36 |
| Different developmental stages | Pericarp, aril | 62, 76, 83, 89, 103, 110 DAA | “Shixia” | 3 | 36 |
| Different organs | Root, shoot, leaf, flower, fruitlets seed | 40, 110 DAA | “Shixia” | 3 | 18 |
| NAA | Pericarp | 0, 2, 3 DAT | “Shixia” | 3 | 9 |
| 2,4-D | Pericarp | 0, 2, 3 DAT | “Shixia” | 3 | 9 |
| Ethephon | Pericarp | 0, 2, 3 DAT | “Shixia” | 3 | 9 |
| Bagging | Pericarp | 0, 2, 3 DAT | “Shixia” | 3 | 9 |
| Temperature (4°C, 22°C) | Aril | 2, 3 DAT | “Shixia” | 3 | 12 |
| Girdling with defoliation | Fruitlets, fruit abscission zone | 4, 5 DAT | “Shixia” | 3 | 12 |
DAA, days after anthesis; DAT, days after treatment. Total number of samples: 150.
Selected candidate reference genes, primers, and amplicon characteristics.
| AAGGAGATGGAGAAGGTTGGTT | 213 | 83.37 | 2.072 | |
| CCCTTTCTGACTTTGGGTAGACATA | ||||
| TCAGACAGTGATTACACCGAGTTC | 246 | 80.87 | 1.914 | |
| GCCAGTAGAGACAAAAAGGCAAGA | ||||
| GTCGCTTGGCTGCCTATAATCT | 204 | 81.79 | 1.962 | |
| AGACCGTTGACTGAACCATCC | ||||
| GATTATGAGGAAGTTGGGGCTG | 175 | 81.09 | 1.986 | |
| AAGCAACCTAGCACATAGTGAAAGT | ||||
| AGATGTTCCGTCGTGTGAGTGA | 86 | 83.43 | 1.977 | |
| CCTCCTCATATTCATCCTCATCAG | ||||
| AAGAGGAGAAAGAGCAAGAGTCAGA | 114 | 80.80 | 1.917 | |
| CCGATACAACAAACCCTGAAATG | ||||
| ACTACCTACAGTACAAGAATGTCAGACC | 184 | 81.44 | 1.949 | |
| GGGCTCCTCATCCTATATCGTT | ||||
| TTGTAGGAAGGGCTGTCGTTG | 207 | 82.46 | 1.992 | |
| TCTCGTCAAGTCACTCTCAAGCAT | ||||
| CCTGAGAAACGGCTACCACAT | 171 | 83.93 | 1.931 | |
| CACCAGACTTGCCCTCCA | ||||
| TGCTATCCTTCGGTTGGACC | 93 | 81.77 | 1.984 | |
| CGGACGATTTCCCGTTCAG | ||||
| ATCCGCAAGTACCAGAAGAGCA | 155 | 85.71 | 2.002 | |
| CCCACCAAGTAAGCCTCAG | ||||
| GATGATTCCCACCAAGCCCAT | 129 | 84.57 | 2.072 | |
| GGGTCCTTCT TCTCAACACTCT |
Figure 1Cq values of candidate reference genes in all longan samples. Lines across boxes indicate median values. Boxes indicate 25/75 percentiles. Whisker caps indicate the minimum and maximum values. Circles represent outliers.
Figure 2Determination of the optimal number of reference genes. Pairwise variation (Vn/n +1) analysis between the normalization factors (NFn and NFn +1) was performed using the geNorm program in all samples. A, different varieties (pericarp); B, different varieties (aril); C, different developmental stages (pericarp); D, different developmental stages (aril); E, different organs; F, NAA stimuli; G, 2,4-D stimuli; H, ethephon stimuli; I, bagging; J, cold temperature treatment (4°C); K, room temperature treatment (22°C); L, girdling with defoliation (fruit abscission zone); M, girdling with defoliation (fruitlets).
Figure 3Average expression stability values (M) of candidate reference genes. The average M values of the reference genes were measured by stepwise exclusion of the least stable reference genes. A lower M value indicates more stable expression, as analyzed by the geNorm software in longan sample sets under different experimental conditions. (A) different varieties (pericarp), (B) different varieties (aril), (C) different developmental stages (pericarp), (D) different developmental stages (aril), (E) different organs, (F) NAA stimuli, (G) 2,4-D stimuli, (H) ethephon stimuli, (I) bagging, (J) cold temperature treatment (4°C), (K) room temperature treatment (22°C), (L) girdling with defoliation (fruit abscission zone), (M) girdling with defoliation (fruitlets).
Figure 4Comparison of the ranking of the candidate reference genes according to their stability values calculated using geNorm and NormFinder. (A) different varieties (pericarp), (B) different varieties (aril), (C) different developmental stages (pericarp), (D) different developmental stages (aril), (E) different organs, (F) NAA stimuli, (G) 2,4-D stimuli, (H) ethephon stimuli, (I) bagging, (J) cold temperature treatment (4°C), (K) room temperature treatment (22°C), (L) girdling with defoliation (fruit abscission zone), (M) girdling with defoliation (fruitlets).
Consensus of stability ranking of the reference genes estimated by geNorm and NormFinder.
| Different varieties (pericarp) | |||
| Different varieties (aril) | |||
| Different developmental stages (pericarp) | |||
| Different developmental stages (aril) | |||
| Different organs | |||
| NAA treatment (pericarp) | |||
| 2,4-D treatment (pericarp) | |||
| Ethephon treatment (pericarp) | |||
| Bagging treatment (pericarp) | |||
| Cold temperature treatment (4°C aril) | |||
| Room temperature treatment (22°C aril) | |||
| Girdling with defoliation (fruit abscission zone) | |||
| Girdling with defoliation (fruitlets) |
Figure 5Relative quantification of .