Evaluation of housekeeping genes for quantitative gene expression analysis in the equine kidney.

Sara Azarpeykan, Keren E Dittmer
Author Information
  1. Sara Azarpeykan: Institute of Veterinary, Animal and Biomedical Science, Massey University, Palmerston North 4442, New Zealand.
  2. Keren E Dittmer: Institute of Veterinary, Animal and Biomedical Science, Massey University, Palmerston North 4442, New Zealand.

Abstract

Housekeeping genes (HKGs) are used as internal controls for normalising and calculating the relative expression of target genes in RT-qPCR experiments. There is no unique universal HKG and HKGs vary among organisms and tissues, so this study aimed to determine the most stably expressed HKGs in the equine kidney. The evaluated HKGs included 18S ribosomal RNA (18S), 28S ribosomal RNA (28S), ribosomal protein L32 (RPL32), β-2-microglobulin (B2M), glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GAPDH), succinate dehydrogenase complex (SDHA), zeta polypeptide (YWHAZ), and hypoxanthine phosphoribosyltransferase 1 (HPRT1). The HKGs expression stability data were analysed with two software packages, geNorm and NormFinder. The lowest stability values for geNorm suggests that YWHAZ and HPRT1 would be most optimal (M=0.31 and 0.32, respectively). Further, these two genes had the best pairwise stability value using NormFinder (geNorm V=0.085). Therefore, these two genes were considered the most useful for RT-qPCR studies in equine kidney.

Keywords

References

  1. Vet Immunol Immunopathol. 2007 May 15;117(1-2):55-66 [PMID: 17346803]
  2. Genome Biol. 2002 Jun 18;3(7):RESEARCH0034 [PMID: 12184808]
  3. BMC Mol Biol. 2011 Jan 28;12:5 [PMID: 21272375]
  4. Reprod Fertil Dev. 2011;23 (2):353-63 [PMID: 21211469]
  5. Plant Physiol Biochem. 2012 Feb;51:116-22 [PMID: 22153247]
  6. Vet Immunol Immunopathol. 2007 Dec 15;120(3-4):212-22 [PMID: 17904230]
  7. Zygote. 2013 May;21(2):167-71 [PMID: 22475447]
  8. BMC Mol Biol. 2008 May 19;9:49 [PMID: 18489742]
  9. Anal Biochem. 2006 Sep 1;356(1):36-43 [PMID: 16844072]
  10. Biotechnol Lett. 2004 Mar;26(6):509-15 [PMID: 15127793]
  11. Genes Immun. 2005 Jun;6(4):279-84 [PMID: 15815687]
  12. BMC Res Notes. 2011 Apr 12;4:120 [PMID: 21486450]
  13. BMC Mol Biol. 2006 Oct 06;7:33 [PMID: 17026756]
  14. BMC Biotechnol. 2006 Apr 27;6:24 [PMID: 16643647]
  15. Vet Immunol Immunopathol. 2009 Jul 15;130(1-2):114-9 [PMID: 19269038]
  16. Cancer Res. 2004 Aug 1;64(15):5245-50 [PMID: 15289330]
  17. J Appl Genet. 2008;49(4):367-72 [PMID: 19029684]
  18. Vet Immunol Immunopathol. 2009 Sep 15;131(1-2):65-72 [PMID: 19376596]
  19. Genome Biol. 2007;8(2):R19 [PMID: 17291332]
  20. Anim Reprod Sci. 2011 May;125(1-4):124-32 [PMID: 21411251]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0genesHKGskidneyexpressionequineribosomalstabilitytwogeNormRT-qPCR18SRNA28SdehydrogenaseYWHAZHPRT1NormFinderhousekeepinggeneHousekeepingusedinternalcontrolsnormalisingcalculatingrelativetargetexperimentsuniqueuniversalHKGvaryamongorganismstissuesstudyaimeddeterminestablyexpressedevaluatedincludedproteinL32RPL32β-2-microglobulinB2Mglyceraldehyde-3-phosphateGAPDHsuccinatecomplexSDHAzetapolypeptidehypoxanthinephosphoribosyltransferase1dataanalysedsoftwarepackageslowestvaluessuggestsoptimalM=031032respectivelybestpairwisevalueusingV=0085ThereforeconsideredusefulstudiesEvaluationquantitativeanalysishorse

Similar Articles

Cited By