title: Analysis of qPCR reference gene stability determination methods and a practical approach for efficiency calculation on a turbot (Scophthalmus maximus) gonad dataset.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Gene expression analysis by reverse transcription quantitative PCR (qPCR) is the most widely used method for analyzing the expression of a moderate number of genes and also for the validation of microarray results. Several issues are crucial for a successful qPCR study, particularly the selection of internal reference genes for normalization and efficiency determination. There is no agreement on which method is the best to detect the most stable genes neither on how to perform efficiency determination. In this study we offer a comprehensive evaluation of the characteristics of reference gene selection methods and how to decide which one is more reliable when they show discordant outcomes. Also, we analyze the current efficiency calculation controversy. Our dataset is composed by gonad samples of turbot at different development times reared at different temperatures. Turbot (Scophthalmus maximus) is a relevant marine aquaculture European species with increasing production in the incoming years. Since females largely outgrow males, identification of genes related to sex determination, gonad development and reproductive behavior, and analysis of their expression profiles are of primary importance for turbot industry.
  
  
  RESULTS
  We analyzed gene stability of six reference genes: RPS4, RPL17, GAPDH, ACTB, UBQ and B2M using the comparative delta-CT method, Bestkeeper, NormFinder and GeNorm approaches in gonad samples of turbot. Supported by descriptive statistics, we found NormFinder to be the best method, while on the other side, GeNorm results proved to be unreliable. According to our analysis, UBQ and RPS4 were the most stable genes, while B2M was the least stable gene. We also analyzed the efficiency calculation softwares LinRegPCR, LREanalyzer, DART and PCR-Miner and we recommend LinRegPCR for research purposes since it does not systematically overestimate efficiency.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Our results indicate that NormFinder and LinRegPCR are the best approaches for reference gene selection and efficiency determination, respectively. We also recommend the use of UBQ and RPS4 for normalization of gonad development samples in turbot.
authors.forename: Diego
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Robledo
authors.forename: Jorge
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Hernández-Urcera
authors.forename: Rosa M
authors.initials: RM
authors.lastname: Cal
authors.forename: Belén G
authors.initials: BG
authors.lastname: Pardo
authors.forename: Laura
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Sánchez
authors.forename: Paulino
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Martínez
authors.affiliation: Departamento de Genética, Facultad de Biología (CIBUS), Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, 15782 Santiago de Compostela, Spain. anamaria.vinas@usc.es.
authors.forename: Ana
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Viñas
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D005260:Female; D005412:Flatfishes / Q000235:genetics*; D008297:Male; D010053:Ovary / Q000378:metabolism*; D012015:Reference Standards; D020133:Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction / Q000592:standards*; D013696:Temperature; D013737:Testis / Q000378:metabolism*
references.citation: J Comput Biol. 2005 Oct;12(8):1047-64
references.pmid: 16241897
references.citation: BMC Mol Biol. 2010 May 11;11:36
references.pmid: 20459764
references.citation: BMC Mol Biol. 2008 Nov 12;9:102
references.pmid: 19014500
references.citation: Anal Biochem. 2009 Aug 15;391(2):91-7
references.pmid: 19464249
references.citation: PLoS One. 2011 Mar 02;6(3):e17636
references.pmid: 21407812
references.citation: Thorax. 2002 Sep;57(9):765-70
references.pmid: 12200519
references.citation: Nucleic Acids Res. 2003 Aug 15;31(16):e93
references.pmid: 12907745
references.citation: Chem Eng Sci. 2010 Sep 1;65(17):4996-5006
references.pmid: 21799540
references.citation: Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2011 Feb;30(2):720-8
references.pmid: 21220029
references.citation: Genes Nutr. 2013 Jan;8(1):5-17
references.pmid: 22903900
references.citation: Mar Biotechnol (NY). 2011 Dec;13(6):1099-114
references.pmid: 21503602
references.citation: Nucleic Acids Res. 2003 Jul 15;31(14):e73
references.pmid: 12853650
references.citation: Nucleic Acids Res. 2009 Apr;37(6):e45
references.pmid: 19237396
references.citation: Neurosci Lett. 2003 Mar 13;339(1):62-6
references.pmid: 12618301
references.citation: Cancer Res. 2004 Aug 1;64(15):5245-50
references.pmid: 15289330
references.citation: Clin Chem. 2009 Apr;55(4):611-22
references.pmid: 19246619
references.citation: Genome Biol. 2002 Jun 18;3(7):RESEARCH0034
references.pmid: 12184808
references.citation: Mar Biotechnol (NY). 2012 Oct;14(5):570-82
references.pmid: 22367415
references.citation: Nucleic Acids Res. 2012 Jan;40(2):e10
references.pmid: 22102586
references.citation: BMC Mol Biol. 2008 Mar 06;9:28
references.pmid: 18325098
references.citation: J Cell Physiol. 2011 Oct;226(10):2469-77
references.pmid: 21412770
references.citation: Methods. 2013 Jan;59(1):32-46
references.pmid: 22975077
references.citation: Biotechnol Lett. 2004 Mar;26(6):509-15
references.pmid: 15127793
references.citation: BMC Bioinformatics. 2008 Apr 29;9:221
references.pmid: 18445269
references.citation: Genetics. 2009 Dec;183(4):1443-52
references.pmid: 19786621
references.citation: Br J Cancer. 2010 Mar 16;102(6):1037-43
references.pmid: 20179706
references.citation: BMC Genet. 2012 Jul 02;13:54
references.pmid: 22747677
references.citation: Chem Eng Sci. 2011 Apr 15;66(8):1783-1789
references.pmid: 21822325
references.citation: PLoS One. 2012;7(3):e31849
references.pmid: 22438870
references.citation: J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2010 Nov 08;29:144
references.pmid: 21059236
references.citation: BMC Biotechnol. 2008 May 08;8:47
references.pmid: 18466619
references.citation: Int Immunopharmacol. 2013 Mar;15(3):588-96
references.pmid: 23419489
references.citation: BMC Mol Biol. 2006 Oct 06;7:33
references.pmid: 17026756