| Literature DB >> 35052500 |
Ze Xu1, Jieyu Dai1, Weijing Su1, Haixia Wu1, Kamran Shah1, Libo Xing1, Juanjuan Ma1, Dong Zhang1, Caiping Zhao1.
Abstract
Real-time quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) is a powerful tool to detect and quantify transcription abundance, and the stability of the reference gene determines its success. However, the most suitable reference gene for different genotypes and tobacco rattle virus (TRV) infected fruits was unclear in peach (Prunus persica L. Batsch). In this study, 10 reference genes were selected and gene expression was characterized by RT-qPCR across all samples, including different genotypes and TRV-infected fruits during ripening. Four statistical algorithms (geNorm, NormFinder, BestKeeper, and RefFinder) were used to calculate the stability of 10 reference genes. The geNorm analysis indicated that two suitable reference genes should be used for gene expression normalization. In general, the best combination of reference genes was CYP2 and Tua5 for TRV-infected fruits and CYP2 and Tub1 for different genotypes. In 18S, GADPH, and TEF2, there is an unacceptable variability of gene expression in all experimental conditions. Furthermore, to confirm the validity of the reference genes, the expression levels of PpACO1, PpEIN2, and PpPL were normalized at different fruit storage periods. In summary, our results provide guidelines for selecting reliable reference genes in different genotypes and TRV-infected fruits and lay the foundation for accurate evaluation of gene expression for RT-qPCR analysis in peach.Entities:
Keywords: Prunus persica; TRV-infected fruits; data normalization; different genotypes; reference gene
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35052500 PMCID: PMC8775616 DOI: 10.3390/genes13010160
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Genes (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4425 Impact factor: 4.096
Figure 1Real-time quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) raw Ct values for ten reference genes in all experimental samples. The boxes represent the 25th and 75th percentiles. A line and a square in each box indicate the median and mean Ct values, respectively. The black dots represent potential outliers.
Figure 2The measurement (M) values of ten reference genes were calculated by geNorm and ranked across all the samples (A), TRV-infected fruits (B), and different genotypes (C). A higher M value means lower stability, while a lower M value implies more stable gene expression.
Figure 3The pairwise variation (Vn/Vn + 1) of ten reference genes by geNorm in all the samples (A), TRV-infected fruits (B), and different genotypes (C). Cut-off value is 0.15.
Ranking of variation value for ten reference genes calculated by Normfinder.
| Rank | All Samples | TRV-Infected Fruits | Different Genotypes | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No Subgroups | 2 Subgroups | |||||||
| 1 | CYP2 | 0.192 | RP II | 0.110 | CYP2 | 0.125 | CYP2 | 0.222 |
| 2 | RP II | 0.381 | CYP2 | 0.133 | Tua5 | 0.211 | UBQ10 | 0.404 |
| 3 | Tub1 | 0.407 | Tub1 | 0.218 | RP II | 0.226 | RP II | 0.426 |
| 4 | UBQ10 | 0.417 | Tua5 | 0.227 | Actin | 0.252 | Tub1 | 0.432 |
| 5 | Tua5 | 0.437 | UBQ10 | 0.240 | Tub1 | 0.267 | Tua5 | 0.470 |
| 6 | Actin | 0.478 | PLA2 | 0.291 | UBQ10 | 0.433 | Actin | 0.476 |
| 7 | GADPH | 0.625 | Actin | 0.312 | PLA2 | 0.471 | GADPH | 0.544 |
| 8 | PLA2 | 0.691 | TEF2 | 0.343 | GADPH | 0.775 | PLA2 | 0.739 |
| 9 | TEF2 | 0.794 | GADPH | 0.350 | TEF2 | 0.815 | TEF2 | 0.785 |
| 10 | 18S | 0.980 | 18S | 0.444 | 18S | 0.816 | 18S | 0.969 |
The R values of ten reference genes were calculated by BestKepper.
| Rank | All Samples | TRV-Infected Fruits | Different Genotypes | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CV ± SD | R | CV ± SD | R | CV ± SD | R | ||||
| 1 | CYP2 | 3.10 ± 0.81 | 0.954 | CYP2 | 3.97 ± 1.01 | 0.999 | Tua5 | 3.24 ± 0.81 | 0.934 |
| 2 | Tua5 | 4.02 ± 0.99 | 0.954 | Actin | 5.88 ± 1.20 | 0.991 | CYP2 | 2.40 ± 0.63 | 0.918 |
| 3 | TEF2 | 5.18 ± 1.16 | 0.928 | Tub1 | 5.37 ± 1.20 | 0.989 | Actin | 4.05 ± 0.84 | 0.907 |
| 4 | RP II | 3.23 ± 0.79 | 0.916 | Tua5 | 4.80 ± 1.15 | 0.984 | RP II | 2.71 ± 0.67 | 0.881 |
| 5 | Actin | 4.66 ± 0.97 | 0.915 | TEF2 | 7.64 ± 1.65 | 0.978 | TEF2 | 4.13 ± 0.94 | 0.867 |
| 6 | Tub1 | 3.66 ± 0.84 | 0.896 | RP II | 3.99 ± 0.95 | 0.971 | UBQ10 | 2.64 ± 0.59 | 0.835 |
| 7 | UBQ10 | 3.51 ± 0.78 | 0.891 | UBQ10 | 3.43 ± 0.73 | 0.969 | GADPH | 3.39 ± 0.73 | 0.815 |
| 8 | GADPH | 4.55 ± 0.96 | 0.848 | PLA2 | 3.27 ± 0.90 | 0.966 | Tub1 | 2.83 ± 0.65 | 0.803 |
| 9 | PLA2 | 2.62 ± 0.74 | 0.741 | 18S | 5.72 ± 0.59 | 0.957 | 18S | 5.75 ± 0.60 | 0.437 |
| 10 | 18S | 5.87 ± 0.61 | 0.554 | GADPH | 5.40 ± 1.09 | 0.145 | PLA2 | 1.66 ± 0.47 | 0.435 |
Comprehensive ranking of ten reference genes were calculated by RefFinder.
| Rank | All Samples | TRV-Infected Fruits | Different Genotypes | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | CYP2 | 1.50 | CYP2 | 2.11 | CYP2 | 1.41 |
| 2 | Tub1 | 2.45 | Tua5 | 3.03 | Tub1 | 2.51 |
| 3 | RPII | 3.13 | Actin | 3.22 | UBQ10 | 2.63 |
| 4 | UBQ10 | 4.12 | Tub1 | 3.56 | RPII | 4.61 |
| 5 | Actin | 5.42 | RPII | 4.16 | PLA2 | 4.76 |
| 6 | 18S | 5.62 | UBQ10 | 4.56 | Actin | 5.05 |
| 7 | PLA2 | 5.66 | 18S | 5.62 | Tua5 | 6.16 |
| 8 | Tua5 | 5.79 | PLA2 | 5.66 | GADPH | 7.00 |
| 9 | GADPH | 7.00 | GADPH | 7.90 | 18S | 7.40 |
| 10 | TEF2 | 9.24 | TEF2 | 8.71 | TEF2 | 9.24 |
Figure 4Relative expression levels of PpACO1, PpEIN2, and PpPL during peach fruit storage. The expression pattern was normalized by the best combination of reference gene, the most stable reference gene alone and the least stable reference gene. (A–C) gene expression levels in TRV-infected ‘Zao Feng Wang’ (ZFW) fruits during storage, (D–F) gene expression levels in ‘Rui Hong’ (RH) during storage, and (H–G) gene expression levels in ‘Qin Wang’ (QW) during storage. MF: melting flesh; SH: stony-hard. Data shown the means with standard error (n = 3).