What's the norm in normalization? A frightening note on the use of RT-qPCR in the livestock science
Busato S., Mezzetti M., Logan P., Aguilera N., Bionaz M.
Laboratory Study with a reported sample of 158, published in Gene (2019) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
- Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
- Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
- Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
- Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
- Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.
- Study type
- Laboratory Study
- Journal
- Gene (2019)
- Reported sample size
- 158
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 34531001
- PMCID
- PMC7285961
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.gene.2018.100003
- Citations
- 5
Abstract (original English)
Reverse-Transcription quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) provides a valuable tool to study gene expression with exquisite sensitivity. To retain its inferential power, user-introduced technical variability must be reduced and accounted for. Selecting a set of stably expressed internal control genes (ICG), validated for each experimental condition/sample set, is widely accepted as a reliable way to normalize RT-qPCR data and account for said variability. Despite significant efforts in establishing standardized and resource-efficient normalization approaches, numerous recent reports have underlined deficiencies in the state of RT-qPCR normalization. Livestock science has benefitted tremendously from the use of RT-qPCR; however, the issue of lack of proper normalization likely affects this discipline as well. We thus decided to determine whether this is true, and to which extent. We conducted an in-depth analysis of all (225) RT-qPCR articles published in the six most prominent livestock journals in the field from 2013 to 2017. A quantitative scale was constructed, and values were assigned to each article based on the number of ICG used, the use of a publicly available algorithm to assess the reliability of ICG, and the reporting of pertinent information related to ICG (ranges from 0 = total noncompliance - to 100 = total compliance). Out of the surveyed group, only 10.7% of the publicati
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
- • This is preclinical work; animal or laboratory results cannot be applied to humans.
Evidence level
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.