Evaluation of candidate reference genes for quantitative real-time PCR analysis in a male rat model of dietary iron deficiency

Fiddler, Joanna L.; Clarke, Stephen L.

doi:10.1186/s12263-021-00698-0

Table 4 Comparative ΔCq evaluation and ranking of RG in pair-fed and iron-deficient animals in all tissues

From: Evaluation of candidate reference genes for quantitative real-time PCR analysis in a male rat model of dietary iron deficiency

Sample	Mean ΔCq	SD	Mean SD	Sample	Mean ΔCq	SD	Mean SD	Sample	Mean ΔCq	SD	Mean SD	Sample	Mean ΔCq	SD	Mean SD
Rpl19 vs Actb	− 0.700	0.280	0.400	Tbp vs Actb	− 7.410	0.250	0.440	Rps29 vs Rpl27	1.460	0.400	0.590	Rplp0 vs Gapdh	2.110	0.650	1.450
Rpl19 vs Rpl27	1.430	0.280	(1)	Tbp vs Rpl27	− 6.070	0.250	(4)	Rps29 vs Rpl19	0.030	0.420	(7)	Rplp0 vs Rpl19	− 1.930	0.660	(10)
Rpl19 vs Rpl22	0.630	0.290		Tbp vs Hprt	− 2.240	0.280		Rps29 vs Ppia	0.440	0.510		Rplp0 vs Ppia	− 1.590	0.720
Rpl19 vs Ppia	0.340	0.310		Tbp vs Ppia	− 6.380	0.310		Rps29 vs Rpl27	0.740	0.550		Rplp0 vs Act	− 2.620	0.740
Rpl19 vs Tbp	6.700	0.360		Tbp vs Rpl19	− 6.700	0.360		Rps29 vs Actb	− 0.590	0.600		Rplp0 vs Hprt	2.050	0.910
Rpl19 vs Rps29	− 0.030	0.420		Tbp vs Rpl27	− 5.280	0.360		Rps29 vs Tbp	6.820	0.650		Rplp0 vs Rps29	− 2.650	2.080
Rpl19 vs Hprt	4.460	0.510		Tbp vs Rps29	− 6.820	0.650		Rps29 vs Hprt	4.570	0.680		Rplp0 vs Rpl27	− 1.210	2.140
Rpl19 vs Gapdh	4.030	0.540		Tbp vs Gapdh	− 2.680	0.660		Rps29 vs Gapdh	4.140	0.740		Rplp0 vs Rpl22	− 1.880	2.290
Rpl19 vs Rplp0	1.930	0.660		Tbp vs Rplp0	− 4.790	0.840		Rps29 vs Rplp0	2.030	0.750		Rplp0 vs Tbp	3.990	2.850
Actb vs Tbp	7.410	0.250	0.420	Rpl22 vs Rpl27	0.800	0.240	0.450	Gapdh vs Rpl19	− 4.030	0.540	0.630
Actb vs Rpl19	0.700	0.280	(2)	Rpl22 vs Tbp	6.070	0.250	(5)	Gapdh vs Actb	− 4.730	0.560	(8)
Actb vs Ppia	1.030	0.290		Rpl22 vs Ppia	− 0.310	0.290		Gapdh vs Rpl27	− 2.600	0.590
Actb vs Rpl22	1.330	0.320		Rpl22 vs Rpl19	− 0.630	0.290		Gapdh vs Ppia	− 3.700	0.620
Actb vs Rpl27	2.120	0.390		Rpl22 vs Hprt	3.830	0.390		Gapdh vs Hprt	0.430	0.630
Actb vs Hprt	5.160	0.410		Rpl22 vs Actb	− 0.870	0.460		Gapdh vs Rplp0	− 2.110	0.650
Actb vs Gapdh	4.730	0.560		Rpl22 vs Rps29	− 0.740	0.550		Gapdh vs Rpl22	− 3.400	0.650
Actb vs Rps29	0.590	0.600		Rpl22 vs Gapdh	3.400	0.650		Gapdh vs Tbp	2.680	0.660
Actb vs Rplp0	2.620	0.740		Rpl22 vs Rplp0	1.750	0.910		Gapdh vs Rps29	− 4.140	0.740
Rpl22 vs Rpl27	− 0.800	0.240	0.430	Hprt vs Tbp	2.240	0.280	0.530	Ppia vs Actb	− 1.030	0.290	1.180
Rpl27 vs Rpl19	− 1.430	0.280	(3)	Hprt vs Rpl22	− 3.830	0.390	(6)	Ppia vs Rpl19	− 0.340	0.310	(9)
Rpl27 vs Tbp	5.280	0.360		Hprt vs Ppia	− 4.140	0.420		Ppia vs Hprt	4.140	0.420
Rpl27 vs Ppia	− 1.090	0.370		Hprt vs Actb	− 5.170	0.490		Ppia vs Gapdh	3.700	0.620
Rpl27 vs Actb	− 2.120	0.390		Hprt vs Rpl27	− 3.030	0.500		Ppia vs Rplp0	1.570	0.720
Rpl27 vs Rps29	− 1.460	0.400		Hprt vs Rpl19	− 4.460	0.510		Ppia vs Rpl22	− 0.290	1.870
Rpl27 vs Hprt	3.030	0.500		Hprt vs Gapdh	− 0.430	0.630		Ppia vs Rps29	− 1.060	1.880
Rpl27 vs Gapdh	2.600	0.590		Hprt vs Rps29	− 4.570	0.680		Ppia vs Rpl27	0.370	2.120
Rpl27 vs Rplp0	0.500	0.730		Hprt vs Rplp0	− 2.560	0.910		Ppia vs Tbp	5.580	2.400

Mean ΔCq values are given for the mean difference between the genes. Standard deviations (SD) are given for the variation in Cq values over the animals

Back to article page

ISSN: 1865-3499

Contact us

General enquiries: journalsubmissions@springernature.com

Genes & Nutrition

Contact us