| Literature DB >> 31341748 |
Guanglong Wang1, Chang Tian2, Yunpeng Wang1, Faxiang Wan1, Laibao Hu1, Aisheng Xiong3, Jie Tian4.
Abstract
Quantitative real-time reverse-transcriptase PCR (qRT-PCR) has been frequently used for detecting gene expression. To obtain reliable results, selection of suitable reference genes is a fundamental and necessary step. Garlic (Allium sativum), a member from Alliaceae family, has been used both as a food flavoring and as a traditional medicine. In the present study, garlic plants were exposed to salt stress (200 mM NaCl) for 0, 1, 4 and 12 h, and garlic roots, bulbs, and leaves were harvested for subsequent analysis. The expression stability of eight candidate reference genes, eukaryotic translation initiation factor 4α (eIF-4α), actin (ACTIN), tubulin β-7 (TUB7), TAP42-interacting protein of 41 kDa (TIP41), glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GAPDH), SAND family protein (SAND), elongation factor 1 alpha (EF-1α), and protein phosphatase 2A (PP2A) were evaluated by geNorm, NormFinder, and BestKeeper. All genes tested displayed variable expression profiles under salt stress. In the leaf and root group, ACTIN was the best reference gene for normalizing gene expression. In garlic clove, ACTIN and SAND were the least variable, and were suitable for gene expression studies under salt stress; these two genes also performed well in all samples tested. Based on our results, we recommend that it is essential to use specific reference genes in different situations to obtain accurate results. Using a combination of multiple stable reference genes, such as ACTIN and SAND, to normalize gene expression is encouraged. The results from the study will be beneficial for accurate determination of gene expression in garlic and other plants.Entities:
Keywords: Garlic; Gene expression; Reference genes; Salt stress; qRT-PCR
Year: 2019 PMID: 31341748 PMCID: PMC6640627 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.7319
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PeerJ ISSN: 2167-8359 Impact factor: 2.984
Details of candidate reference genes with primer sequences and amplified characteristics.
| Gene name | Primer sequences (forward/reverse) | Amplicon length (bp) | E (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TTGTGTTGGACGAGGCAGATGAG/ GCAGAGAAGACGCCGACTTGT | 106 | 105.9 | 0.997 | |
| TGCTCTGGATTATGAACAGGAACTTGA/ CAATCATTGAAGGCTGGAACAACACT | 146 | 103.5 | 0.999 | |
| TGGTCGCTACTTGACTGCCTCT/ CACACGCCTGAACATCTCTTGAATG | 223 | 107.0 | 0.991 | |
| TGGCGGAAGCAAGTGAAGTAGG/ AGAGGTAAGAATAGGACGATTGGAAGA | 134 | 103.5 | 1.000 | |
| CTGGATTGAGCCGTGGTTCATCTT/ ATTGCTTGACACCGCCGAAGTT | 107 | 108.1 | 0.999 | |
| GCGTCAACGAATGTTCCAATTACCA/ TCTCTTCAGTCTCAACTTCATCAGCAT | 100 | 109.4 | 0.995 | |
| CCTGTTCTTGACTGCCACACCTC/ ACCATACCAGCATCGCCATTCTTC | 131 | 103.0 | 0.990 | |
| GGAGAGTTGGAAGAGGTCTTAGAGG/ TTCAAGCACCGAGCGATCTGTT | 92 | 112.0 | 0.999 |
Figure 1Ct values of candidate reference genes in all samples of A. sativum.
The lines across the outside box represent the median values. The inside boxes indicate the mean values. The 25th and 75th percentiles are depicted by the bottom and top lines of the outside box, respectively. The whiskers indicate the maximum and minimum values.
Stability comparison of the candidate reference genes analyzed and ranked by geNorm, NormFinder, and BestKeeper.
| Clove | 1 | 081 | 0.078 | 0.79 | 2.34 | |||
| 2 | 0.81 | 0.080 | 1.73 | 5.97 | ||||
| 3 | 0.98 | 0.103 | 1.95 | 7.01 | ||||
| 4 | 1.17 | 0.106 | 2.16 | 6.87 | ||||
| 5 | 1.36 | 0.116 | 2.17 | 7.92 | ||||
| 6 | 1.49 | 0.157 | 2.39 | 8.16 | ||||
| 7 | 1.64 | 0.233 | 2.50 | 8.48 | ||||
| 8 | 1.91 | 0.349 | 2.56 | 9.91 | ||||
| Leaf | 1 | 0.61 | 0.060 | 1.07 | 3.53 | |||
| 2 | 0.61 | 0.071 | 1.12 | 3.43 | ||||
| 3 | 0.67 | 0.098 | 1.36 | 4.53 | ||||
| 4 | 0.76 | 0.110 | 1.40 | 5.01 | ||||
| 5 | 0.85 | 0.111 | 1.42 | 5.48 | ||||
| 6 | 0.88 | 0.116 | 1.48 | 5.81 | ||||
| 7 | 0.91 | 0.120 | 1.64 | 5.60 | ||||
| 8 | 0.94 | 0.122 | 1.73 | 5.75 | ||||
| Root | 1 | 0.75 | 0.109 | 0.83 | 2.53 | |||
| 2 | 0.75 | 0.116 | 1.51 | 5.37 | ||||
| 3 | 0.79 | 0.124 | 1.53 | 5.57 | ||||
| 4 | 0.88 | 0.128 | 1.72 | 6.04 | ||||
| 5 | 0.97 | 0.129 | 1.80 | 6.97 | ||||
| 6 | 1.04 | 0.135 | 1.81 | 5.53 | ||||
| 7 | 1.12 | 0.137 | 1.99 | 6.66 | ||||
| 8 | 1.35 | 0.337 | 2.14 | 7.07 | ||||
| Total | 1 | 0.87 | 0.058 | 1.71 | 5.31 | |||
| 2 | 0.87 | 0.072 | 1.75 | 6.35 | ||||
| 3 | 0.98 | 0.082 | 1.76 | 6.02 | ||||
| 4 | 1.07 | 0.084 | 1.76 | 6.20 | ||||
| 5 | 1.17 | 0.092 | 1.95 | 7.58 | ||||
| 6 | 1.28 | 0.146 | 2.05 | 6.86 | ||||
| 7 | 1.37 | 0.167 | 2.09 | 7.00 | ||||
| 8 | 2.11 | 0.274 | 3.23 | 10.49 | ||||
Figure 2Estimation of the optimal number of reference genes required for normalization of gene expression.
Pairwise variation (Vn∕n + 1) was calculated between two sequential normalization factors NF and NF by geNorm software.
Figure 3Relative expression level of ascorbate oxidase gene in garlic clove exposed to salt treatment for 0, 1, 4, and 12 h.
Genes were normalized to SAND, TUB7, GAPDH, and EF-1α, respectively. Error bars represent standard deviation from three independent biological replicates.