Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20309600›Full record

ArticleMarine biotechnology (New York, N.Y.)2011

Normalizing RT-qPCR data: are we getting the right answers? An appraisal of normalization approaches and internal reference genes from a case study in the finfish Lates calcarifer.

Christian De Santis, Carolyn Smith-Keune, Dean R Jerry

Abstract readEvaluation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Marine biotechnology (New York, N.Y.), 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 78 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Identification of Reference Genes for RT-qPCR Assays inCurrent issues in molecular biology · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Christian De SantisAquaculture Genetics Research Program, School of Marine and Tropical Biology, James Cook University, Townsville, 4811, QLD, Australia. Christian.desantis@jcu.edu.au
Carolyn Smith-Keune
Dean R Jerry
James Cook University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Commonly used normalization approaches for quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction analyses include (a) input nucleic acids standardization (ΔC (q) method), (b) normalizing target gene transcript abundance against a single internal reference gene (ΔΔC (q) method), and (c) geometric averaging of multiple reference gene abundance using the geNorm software. We compared these three approaches to examine expression of a negative muscle growth regulator gene, myostatin-I (mstn-I), in the finfish Lates calcarifer, following 4 weeks of nutritional fasting. Interestingly, these three different approaches led to widely divergent data interpretations. When ΔC (q) and subsequently ΔΔC (q) with α-tub as the reference gene were applied to mstn-I expression data, an ∼threefold upregulation of this gene was observed in fasted compared to fed fish. In contrast, mstn-I appeared unchanged when data was normalized against the geometric average of the two apparently most "stable" reference genes (elongation factor-1 α (ef1-α) and rpl8) selected from a panel comprising seven commonly utilized candidate reference genes (18S, cat-D, ef1-α, rpl8, gapdh, ubq, and α-tub). The geNorm software erroneously suggested that ef1-α, rpl8, and ubq were the most "stable" reference genes, whereas ΔC (q) analysis revealed these genes simply to exhibit similar patterns of regulation in response to fasting. The ΔC (q) approach showed that α-tub was the least variable in its expression level between fasted and fed fish after 4 weeks. The present study also highlights the importance of validating internal references for each time point under investigation when applying ΔΔC (q) and suggests that the more cost-effective ΔC (q) normalization approach, if carefully applied, may in fact produce the most biologically valid results.

Indexed as

AnimalsFastingFish ProteinsFood DeprivationGene ExpressionPerciformesReverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain ReactionRNA, MessengerFish ProteinsRNA, Messenger

Identifiers

PMID20309600
OpenAlexW1985569492

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.