SnoU6 and 5S RNAs are not reliable miRNA reference genes in neuronal differentiation
Abstract
Accurate profiling of microRNAs (miRNAs) is an essential step for understanding the functional significance of these small RNAs in both physiological and pathological processes. Quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) has gained acceptance as a robust and reliable transcriptomic method to profile subtle changes in miRNA levels and requires reference genes for accurate normalization of gene expression. 5S and snoU6 RNAs are commonly used as reference genes in microRNA quantification. It is currently unknown if these small RNAs are stably expressed during neuronal differentiation. Panels of miRNAs have been suggested as alternative reference genes to 5S and snoU6 in various physiological contexts. To test the hypothesis that miRNAs may serve as stable references during neuronal differentiation, the expressions of eight miRNAs, 5S and snoU6 RNAs in five differentiating neuronal cell types were analyzed using qPCR. The stabilities of the expressions were evaluated using two complementary statistical approaches (geNorm and Normfinder). Expressions of 5S and snoU6 RNAs were stable under some but not all conditions of neuronal differentiation and thus are not suitable reference genes. In contrast, a combination of three miRNAs (miR-103, miR-106b and miR-26b) allowed accurate expression normalization across different models of neuronal differentiation.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
There is a persistent challenge of normalization in miRNA expression studies across cell types and tissues.
“There is a persistent challenge of normalization in miRNA expression studies across cell types and tissues [43–47].”
From Expression of miR-15/107 Family MicroRNAs in Human Tissues and Cultured Rat Brain Cells (2014) · cites this paper as [45]
Cites
Sempere, L. F., Freemantle, S., Pitha-Rowe, I., Moss, E., Dmitrovsky, E., & Ambros, V. (2004) · Genome Biology · doi:10.1186/gb-2004-5-3-r13 · Cited by 1,578 · see citing works
Villeneuve, L. M., Kato, M., Reddy, M. A., Wang, M., Lanting, L., & Natarajan, R. (2010) · Diabetes · doi:10.2337/db10-0208 · Cited by 186 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Expression of miR-15/107 Family MicroRNAs in Human Tissues and Cultured Rat Brain Cells
Wang, W.-X., Danaher, R. J., Miller, C. S., Berger, J. R., Nubia, V. G., Wilfred, B. S., Neltner, J. H., Norris, C. M., & Nelson, P. T. (2014) · Genomics, Proteomics & Bioinformatics · doi:10.1016/j.gpb.2013.10.003 · Cited by 67 · see citing works
- Authors
- Lim, Q. E., Zhou, L., Ho, Y. K., Wan, G., & Too, H. P.
- Venue
- Neuroscience
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2011-12
- Volume
- 199
- Pages
- 32-43
- ISSN
- 0306-4522
- Cited by
- 24
- References
- 2
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review