Gapdh Shows Altered Gene Expression in Alcohol Models

Taseva, T.; Koycheva, Y.; Simeonova, S.; Nikolova, E.; Krasteva, M.

doi:10.2478/amb-2022-0014

Abstract

Background and objectives. Though glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase (Gapdh) is one of the most commonly used housekeeping genes for comparison of gene expression data, studies have revealed that Gapdh expression is not constant at different developmental stages, and is modulated by many factors including ethanol. In view of this, in the present study, we investigated the effect of ethanol on Gapdh stability and expression levels in different model systems.

Methods. Evaluation of Gapdh stability was determined by comparison with three commonly used housekeeping genes in alcohol-exposed and control mouse blastocysts, embryos, and placentas (ActB, Hsp90ab1, and Atp5b), and in alcohol-dependent and healthy humans (ACTB, ATP5B, and HSPCB), and was ranked by the software program RefFinder. To detect the Gapdh expression patterns as a target gene, qRT-PCR analysis was applied.

Results. The order of expression stabilities obtained by the RefFinder ranked Gapdh as the most unstable reference gene in studied groups. The study of the expression dynamics of Gapdh showed significant upregulation in ethanol-exposed mouse blastocysts and embryos (FC = 1.56, p = 0.05 and FC = 6.0, p = 0.01) and downregulation in placentas (FC = 0.60, p = 0.01).

Conclusions. Our results revealed that the expression of Gapdh can vary in different model systems under ethanol exposure and imply the need for caution when using it as an internal control. This is the first report for statistically significant change in Gapdh expression after ethanol exposure during preimplantation mouse development.

References

1. Ornoy A and Ergaz Z. Alcohol abuse in pregnant women: effects on the fetus and newborn, mode of action and maternal treatment. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2010, 7, 364-379.10.3390/ijerph7020364
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
2. Аbrahao K, Salinas A, Lovinger D. Alcohol and the Brain: Neuronal Molecular Targets, Synapses, and Circuits. Neuron, 2017, 96(6), 1223-1238.10.1016/j.neuron.2017.10.032
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
3. Bustin SA. Absolute quantification of mRNA using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction assays. J Mol Endocrinol, 2000, 25, 169-193.10.1677/jme.0.0250169
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
4. Chervoneva I, Li Y, Schulz S et al. Selection of optimal reference genes for normalization in quantitative RT-PCR. BMC Bioinformatics, 2010, 11, 253.10.1186/1471-2105-11-253
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
5. Radonić A, Thulke S, Mackay M et al. Guideline to reference gene selection for quantitative real-time PCR. Biochem Biophys Res Commun, 2004, 313(4), 856-62.10.1016/j.bbrc.2003.11.177
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
6. Garcia-Vallejo J, Hof B, Robben J et al. Approach for defining endogenous reference genes in gene expression experiments. Analytical biochemistry, 2004, 329(2), 293-299.10.1016/j.ab.2004.02.037
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
7. Gutierrez L et al. The lack of a systematic validation of reference genes: a serious pitfall undervalued in reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) analysis in plants. Plant Biotechnol J. 2008, 6, 609-618.10.1111/j.1467-7652.2008.00346.x
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
8. Marouf A, Van Bockstaele E, De Loose M. Validation of reference genes for gene expression analysis in chicory (Cichorium intybus) using quantitative real-time PCR. BMC Mol Biol. 2010, 11, 15.10.1186/1471-2199-11-15
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
9. Janská A, Hodek J, Svoboda P et al. The choice of reference gene set for assessing gene expression in barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) under low temperature and drought stress. Mol Genet Genomics, 2013, 288, 639–649.10.1007/s00438-013-0774-4
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
10. Robert C, McGraw S, Massicotte L et al. Quantification of Housekeeping Transcript Levels During the Development of Bovine Preimplantation Embryos. Biology of reproduction, 2002, 67, 1465-1472.10.1095/biolreprod.102.006320
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
11. Cale M, Millican S, Itoh H et al. Pregnancy induces an increase in the expression of glyceraldehydes – 3 – phosphate dehydrogenase in uterine artery endothelial cells. J Soc Gynecol Invest, 1997, 4, 284-292.10.1016/S1071-5576(97)00067-1
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
12. Calvo EL, Boucher C, Coulombe Z, Morisset J. Pancreatic Gapdh gene expression during ontogeny and acute pancreatitis induced by caerulein. Biochem Bioph Res, 1997, 235, 636-640.10.1006/bbrc.1997.6716
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
13. Suzuki T, Paul J, Crawford H, Crawford D. Control Selection for RNA Quantitation. BioTechniques, 2000, 29, 332-337.10.2144/00292rv02
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
14. Ou M, Stockmeier A, Meltzer Y et al. A novel role for glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase and monoamine oxidase B cascade in ethanol-induced cellular damage. Biol Psychiatry, 2009, 67(9), 855-863.10.1016/j.biopsych.2009.10.032
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
15. Taseva T, Koycheva Y, Olova N. Elevated Igf2 expression and enhanced mouse blastocyst development following in vitro exposure to ethanol. Genetics and Plant Physiology, 2017, 7(3-4), 195-206.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
16. Padmanabhan R, Hameed M. Effects of acute doses of ethanoladministered at pre-implantation stages on fetal development in themouse. Drug Alcohol Depend, 1988, 22, 91-100.10.1016/0376-8716(88)90042-7
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
17. Taseva T, Koycheva Y, Olova N. Differential effects on mouse embryonal and placental imprinted H19 expression following ethanol exposure during implantation. Scientific works of the Union of Scientists in Bulgaria, Plovdiv, 2019, series G, ХХII, 282-285.10.7546/CRABS.2019.12.09
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
18. Kharroubi A, Piras G, Stewart C. DNA Demethylation Reactivates a Subset of Imprinted Genes in Uniparental Mouse Embryonic Fibroblasts. Journal of biological chemistry, 2001, 276 (12), 8674-8680.10.1074/jbc.M00939220011124954
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
19. Bohn E, Heesemann L, Ehlers S. Early gamma interferon mRNA expression is associated with resistance of mice against Yersinia enterocolitica. Autenrieth Infection and Immunity, 1994, 3027-3032.10.1128/iai.62.7.3027-3032.19943029178005693
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
20. Kala R, Shah H, Martin S, Tollefsbol T. Epigenetic-based combinatorial resveratrol and pterostilbene alters DNA damage response by affecting SIRT1 and DNMT enzyme expression, including SIRT1-dependent γ-H2AX and telomerase regulation in triple-negative breast cancer. BMC Cancer, 2015, 15, 672.10.1186/s12885-015-1693-z460334226459286
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
21. Gandhiraja R, Jain M, Walla B et al. Cysteine S-Glutathionylation Promotes Stability andmActivation of the Hippo Downstream Effector Transcriptional Co-activator with PDZ-binding Motif (TAZ). J Biol Chem, 2016, 291, 22, 11596–11607.10.1074/jbc.M115.712539488243027048650
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
22. Cavalcanti C, Failling K, Schuppe C et al. Validation of reference genes in human testis and ejaculate. Andrologia, 2011, 43, 361-367.10.1111/j.1439-0272.2010.01076.x21714797
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
23. Pfaffl M, Horgan G, Dempfle L. Relative expression software tool (REST) for group-wise comparison and statistical analysis of relative expression results in real-time PCR. Nucleic Acids Res, 2002, 30(9), e36.10.1093/nar/30.9.e3611385911972351
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
24. Xie F, Xiao P, Chen D et al. miRDeepFinder: a miRNA analysis tool for deep sequencing of plant small RNAs. Plant molecular biology, 2012, 80 (1), 75-84.10.1007/s11103-012-9885-222290409
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
25. Andersen C, Jensen J, Orntoft T. Normalization of real-time quantitative reverse transcription-PCR data: A model-based variance estimation approach to identify genes suited for normalization, applied to bladder and colon cancer data sets. Cancer Res., 2004, 64, 5245–5250.10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-04-049615289330
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
26. Gu Y, Shen X, Zhou D et al. Selection and expression profiles of reference genes in mouse preimplantation embryos of different ploidies at various developmental stages, PLOS ONE, 2014, 9, 6.10.1371/journal.pone.0098956405715624927500
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
27. Boujedidi H et al. Housekeeping Gene Variability in the Liver of Alcoholic Patients. Alcoholism. Clin Expl Res, 2010, 36, 2, 258-266.10.1111/j.1530-0277.2011.01627.x21913943
Search in Google Scholar Back to article

Gapdh Shows Altered Gene Expression in Alcohol Models

Abstract

Paradigm

My account