Evaluation of eight reference genes for quantitative polymerase chain reaction analysis in human T lymphocytes co-cultured with mesenchymal stem cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate gene expression analysis relies on the selection of a stable reference gene, as unstable reference genes can alter experimental results and conclusions. It is widely‑accepted that reference genes exhibit different expression levels in different types of tissues and cells. Therefore, it is essential to screen for stably‑expressed reference genes in the cells and tissues used for experimental analysis prior to performing reverse transcription‑quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT‑qPCR). In the present study, eight reference genes were screened for their suitability for RT‑qPCR in five T lymphocytes co‑cultured with mesenchymal stem cells from different sources. Using NormFinder, geNorm, and BestKeeper algorithms consistently demonstrated that RPL13A and B2M were the optimal reference genes for the normalization of RT‑qPCR data obtained from T lymphocytes, whereas glyceraldehyde 3‑phosphate dehydrogenase was not a suitable reference gene due to its extensive variability in expression. These findings highlight the importance of evaluating reference genes for RT‑qPCR.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".