RNA-Seq is not required to determine stable reference genes for qPCR normalization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Assessment of differential gene expression by qPCR is heavily influenced by the choice of reference genes. Although numerous statistical approaches have been proposed to determine the best reference genes, they can give rise to conflicting results depending on experimental conditions. Hence, recent studies propose the use of RNA-Seq to identify stable genes followed by the application of different statistical approaches to determine the best set of reference genes for qPCR data normalization. In this study, however, we demonstrate that the statistical approach to determine the best reference genes from commonly used conventional candidates is more important than the preselection of 'stable' candidates from RNA-Seq data. Using a qPCR data normalization workflow that we have previously established; we show that qPCR data normalization using conventional reference genes render the same results as stable reference genes selected from RNA-Seq data. We validated these observations in two distinct cross-sectional experimental conditions involving human iPSC derived microglial cells and mouse sciatic nerves. These results taken together show that given a robust statistical approach for reference gene selection, stable genes selected from RNA-Seq data do not offer any significant advantage over commonly used reference genes for normalizing qPCR assays.
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 | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
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".