MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2413969874 · doi:10.3389/fpls.2016.00811

Identification and Validation of Reference Genes for RT-qPCR Analysis in Non-Heading Chinese Cabbage Flowers

2016· article· en· W2413969874 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Cheng Wang, Hong-Mi Cui, Tianhong Huang, Tongkun Liu, Xilin Hou, Ying Li

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Plant Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMolecular Biology Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSpecialized Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education of ChinaNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaNatural Science Foundation of Jiangsu ProvinceUniversity of TorontoGovernment of Jiangsu ProvinceMinistry of Science and Technology of the People's Republic of ChinaMinistry of Education of the People's Republic of ChinaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsReference genesBiologyGeneGene expressionPhosphoenolpyruvate carboxylaseMessenger RNARibosomal proteinGlyceraldehyde 3-phosphate dehydrogenaseComplementary DNARNAGeneticsMolecular biologyComputational biologyRibosome

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quantification of mRNA transcript levels analysis is increasingly important in furthering our insight into complex metabolic pathways and signaling networks which underlie physiological and developmental processes. Quantitative reverse transcription-PCR (RT-qPCR) has been used as the main analysis technique to quantify mRNA transcript levels as well as validate high-throughput data due to its high sensitivity, accuracy and specificity in various fields of biological research (Bustin 2002; Artico et al. 2010). However, the accuracy of RT-qPCR is easily affected by various factors, such as the quality of mRNA samples, enzymatic efficiency in cDNA synthesis, the efficiency of amplification and the differences in transcriptional activity between the tissues or cells analyzed (Pfaffl 2001; Derveaux et al. 2010). To avoid bias in RT-qPCR analysis, reliable internal controls, termed reference genes that are steadily expressed in different experimental condition, are essential for normalization. Some of the commonly used reference genes in plants, such as beta-tubulin-4 (TUB4), polyubiquitin (UBQ), glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GAPDH), 18S ribosomal RNA (18S rRNA), actin 7 (ACT7), DNAJ-like protein (DNAJ), and alpha tubulin-5 (TUA5), mostly involving in basic cellular processes, such as intermediary metabolism and protein translation and thus, have been widely adopted for gene expression analyses in different plant species (Die et al. 2010; Kozera and Rapacz 2013; Wei et al. 2013; Xiao et al. 2014; Delporte et al. 2015). In addition, some new reference genes including F-box protein (F-box), acyl carrier proteins (ACP), phosphoenolpyruvate carboxylase-related kinase 1 (PEPKR1), hypothetical proteins of unknown function (UNK1), SAND family protein (SAND), and TAP42-interacting protein of 41 kDa (TIP41), were identified and found to express stably (Libault et al. 2008; Chang et al. 2012; Nakashima et al. 2013). However, no single reference gene can always keep its stability under variable conditions (Kim et al. 2003; Argyropoulos et al. 2006; Fu et al. 2013; Niu et al. 2015). A systematic validation of the expression stability of candidate reference genes in each experimental system should be carried out before using these reference genes for normalization data in gene expression analysis. Meanwhile, several statistical algorithms, such as geNorm (Vandesompele et al. 2002), NormFinder (Andersen et al. 2004) and

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.260
Threshold uncertainty score0.194

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations42
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Plant ScienceSame topicMolecular Biology Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207