↓ Skip to main content

Selection of Reliable Reference Genes for Gene Expression Studies Using Real-Time PCR in Tung Tree during Seed Development

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, August 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
98 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Selection of Reliable Reference Genes for Gene Expression Studies Using Real-Time PCR in Tung Tree during Seed Development
Published in
PLOS ONE, August 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0043084
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xiaojiao Han, Mengzhu Lu, Yicun Chen, Zhiyong Zhan, Qinqin Cui, Yangdong Wang

Abstract

Quantitative real-time PCR (RT-qPCR) has become an accurate and widely used technique to analyze expression levels of selected genes. It is very necessary to select appropriate reference genes for gene expression normalization. In the present study, we assessed the expression stability of 11 reference genes including eight traditional housekeeping genes and three novel genes in different tissues/organs and developing seeds from four cultivars of tung tree. All 11 reference genes showed a wide range of Ct values in all samples, indicating that they differently expressed. Three softwares--geNorm, NormFinder and BestKeeper--were used to determine the stability of these references except for ALB (2S albumin), which presented a little divergence. The results from the three softwares showed that ACT7 (Actin7a), UBQ (Ubiquitin), GAPDH (glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase) and EF1α (elongation factor 1-α) were the most stable reference genes across all of the tested tung samples and tung developing seeds, while ALB (2S albumin) was unsuitable as internal controls. ACT7, EF1β (elongation factor1-beta), GAPDH and TEF1 (transcription elongation factor 1) were the top four choices for different tissues/organs whereas LCR69 did not favor normalization of RT-qPCR in these tissues/organs. Meanwhile, the expression profiles of FAD2 and FADX were realized using stable reference genes. The relative quantification of the FAD2 and FADX genes varied according to the internal controls and the number of internal controls. The results further proved the importance of the choice of reference genes in the tung tree. These stable reference genes will be employed in normalization and quantification of transcript levels in future expression studies of tung genes.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 2%
Australia 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 47 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 24%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 14%
Student > Bachelor 7 14%
Researcher 7 14%
Student > Master 5 10%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 6 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 28 56%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 16%
Computer Science 2 4%
Environmental Science 1 2%
Social Sciences 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 9 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 August 2012.
All research outputs
#3,936,091
of 22,709,015 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#56,387
of 193,901 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,054
of 169,180 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#842
of 4,218 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,709,015 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,901 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 169,180 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,218 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.