An optimized protocol for stepwise optimization of real-time RT-PCR analysis
Horticulture Research, ISSN: 2052-7276, Vol: 8, Issue: 1, Page: 179
2021
- 60Citations
- 197Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations60
- Citation Indexes60
- 60
- CrossRef4
- Captures197
- Readers197
- 197
Article Description
Computational tool-assisted primer design for real-time reverse transcription (RT) PCR (qPCR) analysis largely ignores the sequence similarities between sequences of homologous genes in a plant genome. It can lead to false confidence in the quality of the designed primers, which sometimes results in skipping the optimization steps for qPCR. However, the optimization of qPCR parameters plays an essential role in the efficiency, specificity, and sensitivity of each gene’s primers. Here, we proposed an optimized approach to sequentially optimizing primer sequences, annealing temperatures, primer concentrations, and cDNA concentration range for each reference (and target) gene. Our approach started with a sequence-specific primer design that should be based on the single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) present in all the homologous sequences for each of the reference (and target) genes under study. By combining the efficiency calibrated and standard curve methods with the 2 method, the standard cDNA concentration curve with a logarithmic scale was obtained for each primer pair for each gene. As a result, an R ≥ 0.9999 and the efficiency (E) = 100 ± 5% should be achieved for the best primer pair of each gene, which serve as the prerequisite for using the 2 method for data analysis. We applied our newly developed approach to identify the best reference genes in different tissues and at various inflorescence developmental stages of Tripidium ravennae, an ornamental and biomass grass, and validated their utility under varying abiotic stress conditions. We also applied this approach to test the expression stability of six reference genes in soybean under biotic stress treatment with Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. glycines (Xag). Thus, these case studies demonstrated the effectiveness of our optimized protocol for qPCR analysis.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85111618777&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41438-021-00616-w; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34333545; https://academic.oup.com/hr/article/6446789; https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41438-021-00616-w; https://academic.oup.com/hr/article/doi/10.1038/s41438-021-00616-w/6446789
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know