Selection of reference genes for quantitative gene expression normalization in flax (Linum usitatissimum L.).
BACKGROUND
Quantitative real-time PCR (qRT-PCR) is currently the most accurate method for detecting differential gene expression. Such an approach depends on the identification of uniformly expressed 'housekeeping genes' (HKGs). Extensive transcriptomic data mining and experimental validation in different model plants have shown that the reliability of these endogenous controls can be influenced by the plant species, growth conditions and organs/tissues examined. It is therefore important to identify the best reference genes to use in each biological system before using qRT-PCR to investigate differential gene expression. In this paper we evaluate different candidate HKGs for developmental transcriptomic studies in the economically-important flax fiber- and oil-crop (Linum usitatissimum L).


RESULTS
Specific primers were designed in order to quantify the expression levels of 20 different potential housekeeping genes in flax roots, internal- and external-stem tissues, leaves and flowers at different developmental stages. After calculations of PCR efficiencies, 13 HKGs were retained and their expression stabilities evaluated by the computer algorithms geNorm and NormFinder. According to geNorm, 2 Transcriptional Elongation Factors (TEFs) and 1 Ubiquitin gene are necessary for normalizing gene expression when all studied samples are considered. However, only 2 TEFs are required for normalizing expression in stem tissues. In contrast, NormFinder identified glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GADPH) as the most stably expressed gene when all samples were grouped together, as well as when samples were classed into different sub-groups.qRT-PCR was then used to investigate the relative expression levels of two splice variants of the flax LuMYB1 gene (homologue of AtMYB59). LuMYB1-1 and LuMYB1-2 were highly expressed in the internal stem tissues as compared to outer stem tissues and other samples. This result was confirmed with both geNorm-designated- and NormFinder-designated-reference genes.


CONCLUSIONS
The use of 2 different statistical algorithms results in the identification of different combinations of flax HKGs for expression data normalization. Despite such differences, the use of geNorm-designated- and NormFinder-designated-reference genes enabled us to accurately compare the expression levels of a flax MYB gene in different organs and tissues. Our identification and validation of suitable flax HKGs will facilitate future developmental transcriptomic studies in this economically-important plant.
Huis
Rudy
R
UMR INRA-USTL 1281 Stress Abiotiques et Différenciation des Végétaux Cultivés, Université Lille 1, Villeneuve d'Ascq, France.
Hawkins
Simon
S
Neutelings
Godfrey
G
D019597:Flax / Q000235:genetics*; D020869:Gene Expression Profiling; D018506:Gene Expression Regulation, Plant; D017343:Genes, Plant / Q000235:genetics*; D010940:Plant Proteins / Q000235:genetics / Q000378:metabolism; D020033:Protein Isoforms / Q000235:genetics / Q000378:metabolism; D012015:Reference Standards; D020133:Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction / Q000592:standards*; D017386:Sequence Homology, Amino Acid
D010940:Plant Proteins; D020033:Protein Isoforms
Biochim Biophys Acta. 1981 Jan 29;652(1):1-15
7213728
Mol Biol Rep. 2008 Dec;35(4):567-73
17674141
Comp Biochem Physiol B Biochem Mol Biol. 2001 Oct;130(3):281-9
11567890
Plant Biol (Stuttg). 2005 Jan;7(1):23-32
15666211
BMC Mol Biol. 2008 Jun 23;9:59
18573215
Plant Cell Rep. 2009 Mar;28(3):359-71
19011860
Plant J. 1995 Jul;8(1):1-8
7655501
Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2006 Jun 30;345(2):646-51
16690022
J Exp Bot. 2006;57(6):1263-73
16531467
Cancer Res. 2004 Aug 1;64(15):5245-50
15289330
Genome Biol. 2002 Jun 18;3(7):RESEARCH0034
12184808
Trends Biotechnol. 2002 Jun;20(6):229-30
12007483
Methods Mol Biol. 2000;132:365-86
10547847
BMC Plant Biol. 2004 Aug 18;4:14
15317655
BMC Plant Biol. 2006 Nov 14;6:27
17105665
Planta. 2005 Oct;222(2):234-45
15968509
Mol Genet Genomics. 2007 Aug;278(2):149-65
17503083
J Biotechnol. 2004 Jan 8;107(1):41-54
14687970
J Biotechnol. 2007 Mar 10;128(4):919-34
17280732
Chemosphere. 2008 Oct;73(5):657-62
18774158
J Exp Bot. 2004 Jul;55(402):1445-54
15208338
J Agric Food Chem. 2001 Dec;49(12):5778-84
11743763
Plant Cell. 1995 Oct;7(10):1645-1654
12242357
J Exp Bot. 2009;60(2):487-93
19264760
BMC Plant Biol. 2008 Nov 07;8:112
18992143
Plant Mol Biol. 2007 Mar;63(5):679-88
17143578
J Exp Bot. 2005 Nov;56(421):2907-14
16188960
Plant Physiol. 2008 Sep;148(1):119-31
18641086
BMC Plant Biol. 2008 Dec 22;8:131
19102748
Nucleic Acids Res. 2003 Jul 1;31(13):3406-15
12824337
Biotechnol Lett. 2003 Nov;25(21):1869-72
14677714
Lipids. 2008 Aug;43(8):749-55
18597133
Plant Physiol. 2005 Sep;139(1):79-87
16113219
J Plant Physiol. 2009 Sep 15;166(14):1576-80
19410334
Curr Genet. 1993 Nov;24(5):428-32
8299159
BMC Plant Biol. 2007 Mar 02;7:11
17335571
Trends Biotechnol. 2005 Jan;23(1):22-7
15629854
Physiol Plant. 2001 Oct;113(2):275-284
12060306
Anal Biochem. 2008 Aug 15;379(2):176-81
18503743
Cell Res. 2009 Nov;19(11):1291-304
19581938
BMC Mol Biol. 2009 Feb 20;10:11
19232096
BMC Mol Biol. 2009 Jan 06;10:1
19126214
J Exp Bot. 2006;57(9):1919-32
16606634
Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1998 Apr 17;245(2):295-300
9571144
Genome. 1994 Feb;37(1):137-47
8181734
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1993 Sep 15;90(18):8519-23
8378325
Plant Physiol. 1996 Mar;110(3):721-729
12226214
Physiol Plant. 2001 Jun;112(2):223-232
11454228
Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2007 Dec;10(6):564-72
17950657
Nucleic Acids Res. 1981 Mar 25;9(6):1301-9
6262724
Plant Cell. 2009 Jan;21(1):248-66
19122102
Plant Physiol. 2005 Sep;139(1):5-17
16166256
FEBS J. 2009 Jun;276(11):3148-62
19490115
J Exp Bot. 2008;59(14):3925-39
18805909