Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21509536›Full record

ArticleDevelopment genes and evolution2011

Getting real with real-time qPCR: a case study of reference gene selection for morphological variation in Drosophila melanogaster wings.

Bruna P Matta, Blanche C Bitner-Mathé, Marcio Alves-Ferreira

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Development genes and evolution, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. The First Report of a Bang-Sensitive Strain inInternational journal of molecular sciences · 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. Autophagy regulates Wolbachia populations across diverse symbiotic associations.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2012
    Article
  16. Article
  17. 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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Bruna P MattaLaboratório de Evolução de Caracteres Complexos, Departamento de Genética, Instituto de Biologia, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rua Professor Rodolpho Paulo Rocco, s/n; Prédio do CCS, Bloco A, sala A2-075; Cidade Universitária, Rio de Janeiro, 21941-617, RJ, Brazil. bpalma@biologia.ufrj.br
Blanche C Bitner-Mathé
Marcio Alves-Ferreira
Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro · BRCentro Universitário da Cidade · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurate estimation of gene expression differences during development requires sensitive techniques combined with gold-standard normalization procedures. This is particularly true in the case of quantitative traits, where expression changes might be small. Nevertheless, systematic selection and validation of reference genes has been overlooked, even in Drosophila studies. Here, we tested the stability of six traditional reference genes across samples of imaginal wing disks from morphologically divergent strains of Drosophila melanogaster, in a two-class comparison: quantitative or qualitative variation in wing morphology. Overall, we identified and validated a pair of genes (RpL32 and Tbp) as being stably expressed in both experimental comparisons. These genes might be considered as a bona fide pair of reference genes for gene expression analyses of morphological divergence in D. melanogaster wings. They might also be taken as good candidates for experimental identification of stable reference genes in other morphological comparisons using Drosophila or other insect species. Besides, we found that some genes traditionally used as reference in qPCR experiments were not stably expressed in wing disks from the different fly strains. In fact, a significant bias was observed when the expression of three genes of interest, which are involved in the regulation of growth and patterning during imaginal wing development, was normalized with such putative reference genes. Our results demonstrate how inaccurate findings and opposite conclusions might be drawn if traditional reference genes are arbitrarily used for internal normalization without proper validation in the given experimental condition, a practice still common in qPCR experiments.

Indexed as

Drosophila ProteinsReverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain ReactionRibosomal ProteinsTATA-Box Binding ProteinAnimalsDNA, ComplementaryDrosophila melanogasterGene Expression ProfilingReference StandardsReproducibility of ResultsRNAWings, AnimalDNA, ComplementaryDrosophila ProteinsRibosomal ProteinsRNARpL32 protein, DrosophilaTATA-Box Binding Protein

Identifiers

PMID21509536
OpenAlexW2031546849

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.