Validation of optimal reference genes for quantitative real time PCR in muscle and adipose tissue for obesity and diabetes research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The global incidence of obesity has led to an increasing need for understanding the molecular mechanisms that drive this epidemic and its comorbidities. Quantitative real-time RT-PCR (RT-qPCR) is the most reliable and widely used method for gene expression analysis. The selection of suitable reference genes (RGs) is critical for obtaining accurate gene expression information. The current study aimed to identify optimal RGs to perform quantitative transcriptomic analysis based on RT-qPCR for obesity and diabetes research, employing in vitro and mouse models, and human tissue samples. Using the ReFinder program we evaluated the stability of a total of 15 RGs. The impact of choosing the most suitable RGs versus less suitable RGs on RT-qPCR results was assessed. Optimal RGs differed between tissue and cell type, species, and experimental conditions. By employing different sets of RGs to normalize the mRNA expression of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma coactivator 1-alpha (PGC1α), we show that sub-optimal RGs can markedly alter the PGC1α gene expression profile. Our study demonstrates the importance of validating RGs prior to normalizing transcriptional expression levels of target genes and identifies optimal RG pairs for reliable RT-qPCR normalization in cells and in human and murine muscle and adipose tissue for obesity/diabetes research.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".