Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23469057›Full record

ArticlePloS one2013

Validation of reference genes in Solenopsis invicta in different developmental stages, castes and tissues.

Daifeng Cheng, Zhiling Zhang, Xiaofang He, Guangwen Liang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

49 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Selection ofInsects · 2025
    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

4 authors.

Daifeng ChengDepartment of Entomology, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, People's Republic China.
Zhiling Zhang
Xiaofang He
Guangwen Liang

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To accurately assess gene expression levels, it is essential to normalize real-time quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) data with suitable internal reference genes. For the red imported fire ant, Solenopsis invicta, reliable reference genes to assess the transcript expression levels of the target genes have not been previously investigated. In this study, we examined the expression levels of five candidate reference genes (rpl18, ef1-beta, act, GAPDH, and tbp) in different developmental stages, castes and tissues of S. invicta. To evaluate the suitability of these genes as endogenous controls, three software-based approaches (geNorm, BestKeeper and NormFinder) and one web-based comprehensive tool (RefFinder) were used to analyze and rank the tested genes. Furthermore, the optimal number of reference gene(s) was determined by the pairwise variation value. Our data showed that two of the five candidate genes, rpl18 and ef1-beta, were the most suitable reference genes because they have the most stable expression among different developmental stages, castes and tissues in S. invicta. Although widely used as reference gene in other species, in S. invicta the act gene has high variation in expression and was consequently excluded as a reliable reference gene. The two validated reference genes, rpl18 and ef1-beta, can be widely used for quantification of target gene expression with RT-qPCR technology in S. invicta.

Indexed as

AnimalsFemaleGene Expression ProfilingGene Expression Regulation, DevelopmentalGenes, InsectHymenopteraInterpersonal RelationsLarvaMaleOrgan SpecificityPolymerase Chain ReactionPupaReference StandardsReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID23469057
PMCPMC3585193

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.