| Literature DB >> 31527603 |
Zheng Wang1, Qianqian Meng1, Xi Zhu1,2, Shiwei Sun1, Shengfeng Gao1, Yafeng Gou1, Aiqin Liu3,4.
Abstract
Helopeltis theivora Waterhouse is a predominant sucking pest in many tropic economic crops, such as tea, cocoa and coffee. Quantitative real-time PCR (qRT-PCR) is one of the most powerful tools to analyze the gene expression level and investigate the mechanism of insect physiology at transcriptional level. Gene expression studies utilizing qRT-PCR have been applied to numerous insects so far. However, no universal reference genes could be used for H. theivora. To obtain accurate and reliable normalized data in H. theivora, twelve candidate reference genes were examined under different tissues, developmental stages and sexes by using geNorm, NormFinder, BestKeeper, Delta Ct and RefFinder algorithms, respectively. The results revealed that the ideal reference genes differed across the treatments, and the consensus rankings generated from stability values provided by these programs suggested a combination of two genes for normalization. To be specific, RPS3A and Actin were the best suitable reference genes for tissues, RPL13A and GAPDH were suitable for developmental stages, EF1α and RPL13A were suitable for sexes, and RPL13A and RPS3A were suitable for all samples. This study represents the first systematic analysis of reference genes for qRT-PCR experiments in H. theivora, and the results can provide a credible normalization for qRT-PCR data, facilitating transcript profiling studies of functional genes in this insect.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31527603 PMCID: PMC6746731 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-49479-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Primer amplification characteristics of candidate genes for qRT-PCR in H. theivora.
| Gene (Abbreviation) | Accession Number | Primer sequence | Product length (bp) | Tm (°C) |
| E (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| MN027587 | 5′ TACCGCAAGATTCCATACCCA 3' | 109 | 60 | 0.999 | 90.58 |
| 5′ AAGTCCTACGAGCTTCCCGAC 3' | ||||||
|
| MN027588 | 5′ GATGAAGGAAGTTGACGAGCA 3' | 237 | 57 | 0.999 | 90.10 |
| 5′ TCACCAGTATACCAATGGAGG 3' | ||||||
|
| MN027589 | 5′ TCAGGAAAAGGAGGCGGCAAA 3' | 365 | 61 | 0.999 | 90.99 |
| 5′ GGCGAGGGAACGACAGAGTAG 3' | ||||||
|
| MN027592 | 5′ ACACAAAATCGAAAGGGGAAA 3' | 153 | 59 | 1.000 | 93.76 |
| 5′ CGACCAAGATGACAGTAGGCA 3' | ||||||
|
| MN027594 | 5′ TCGCTTTCGTTCCAATCTCTG 3' | 107 | 60 | 0.999 | 91.66 |
| 5′ GGCTTTGCCTTCTTTCCTTTC 3' | ||||||
|
| MN027598 | 5′ GCAGCATGGTGAAAAAGTGGC 3' | 151 | 60 | 0.999 | 91.21 |
| 5′ ACCTGGTTGTGTTGAGCGTAA 3' | ||||||
|
| MN027590 | 5′ CAATGACCCCTTTTTGGGCG 3' | 163 | 60 | 0.999 | 96.69 |
| 5′ CCATGGGATGGCTTTGGGAT 3' | ||||||
|
| MN027591 | 5′ GCGATGTTGAACGTTGCTGT 3' | 110 | 59 | 0.999 | 96.32 |
| 5′ ACGCTTATGGCTCCGTCAAA 3' | ||||||
|
| MN027593 | 5′ CGTCTGCATATAGCGTCCGT 3' | 237 | 60 | 0.999 | 95.01 |
| 5′ GAGAACCACGTCGTCCACAT 3' | ||||||
|
| MN027595 | 5′ TGGTTCGAAACATGCCGAGA 3' | 184 | 60 | 0.999 | 93.64 |
| 5′ GCGTTGCTGAATAGCGGAAG 3' | ||||||
|
| MN027596 | 5′ CATCCCCAGCATCGGTACTC 3' | 296 | 60 | 0.999 | 93.79 |
| 5′ AAGGCGTCATCGGTGTCATT 3' | ||||||
|
| MN027597 | 5′ GATTATCCGCTGAGCCCTCC 3' | 226 | 60 | 1.000 | 96.87 |
| 5′ CATTAGCGCCACTTTCGTCG 3' |
Figure 1Average Ct values of twelve candidate reference genes at different tissues, development stages and sexes in H. theivora.
Figure 2Expression stability and optimal number for normalization of candidate reference genes analyzed by geNorm. (A–D) The stability M values of candidate genes in tissues, developmental stages, sexes and all sample, respectively. (E–H) The pairwise variations Vn/Vn+ 1 of candidate genes in four treatments mentioned above.
Figure 3Stability analyses of candidate reference genes by NormFinder and Delta Ct algorithms. (A–D) The stability values of candidate genes calculated by NormFinder software in tissues, developmental stages, sexes and all sample, respectively. (E–H) The average STDEV values of candidate genes calculated by Delta Ct algorithms in four treatments mentioned above.
Figure 4Expression stability of candidate reference genes in four experimental groups calculated by Bestkeeper.
Figure 5Comprehensive stability of candidate reference genes in four experimental groups determined by RefFinder.
Expression stability ranking of the twelve candidate reference genes.
| Experimental conditions | Methods | Stability ranking | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | ||
| Tissues | geNorm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| NormFinder |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Delta Ct |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Bestkeeper |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| RefFinder |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Developmental stages | geNorm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| NormFinder |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Delta Ct |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Bestkeeper |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| RefFinder |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Sexes | geNorm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| NormFinder |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Delta Ct |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Bestkeeper |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| RefFinder |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| All samples | geNorm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| NormFinder |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Delta Ct |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Bestkeeper |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| RefFinder |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Figure 6Validation of the gene stability measures. Expression levels of a target gene, OBP3, in six tissues (A) and all samples (including two tissues, two developmental stages, and two sexes) (B) were tested by different normalization reference genes. Bars represent the means and standard deviations of three biological replicates. Single asterisk indicates significant differences among different treatment within OBP3 expression by normalized by reference gene or combination (P < 0.05, Duncan’s test), and double asterisks show extremely significant differences in the expression of OBP3 (P < 0.01, Duncan’s test).