Skip to main content
PMC home page
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2014 Aug 14;9(8):e105002. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0105002

Identification of Suitable Reference Genes for Gene Expression Studies of Shoulder Instability

Mariana Ferreira Leal 1,2,*, Paulo Santoro Belangero 1, Carina Cohen 1, Eduardo Antônio Figueiredo 1, Leonor Casilla Loyola 1,2, Alberto Castro Pochini 1, Marília Cardoso Smith 2, Carlos Vicente Andreoli 1, Sintia Iole Belangero 2,3, Benno Ejnisman 1, Moises Cohen 1
Editor: Tim Douglas Aumann4
PMCID: PMC4133370  PMID: 25122470

Abstract

Shoulder instability is a common shoulder injury, and patients present with plastic deformation of the glenohumeral capsule. Gene expression analysis may be a useful tool for increasing the general understanding of capsule deformation, and reverse-transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) has become an effective method for such studies. Although RT-qPCR is highly sensitive and specific, it requires the use of suitable reference genes for data normalization to guarantee meaningful and reproducible results. In the present study, we evaluated the suitability of a set of reference genes using samples from the glenohumeral capsules of individuals with and without shoulder instability. We analyzed the expression of six commonly used reference genes (ACTB, B2M, GAPDH, HPRT1, TBP and TFRC) in the antero-inferior, antero-superior and posterior portions of the glenohumeral capsules of cases and controls. The stability of the candidate reference gene expression was determined using four software packages: NormFinder, geNorm, BestKeeper and DataAssist. Overall, HPRT1 was the best single reference gene, and HPRT1 and B2M composed the best pair of reference genes from different analysis groups, including simultaneous analysis of all tissue samples. GenEx software was used to identify the optimal number of reference genes to be used for normalization and demonstrated that the accumulated standard deviation resulting from the use of 2 reference genes was similar to that resulting from the use of 3 or more reference genes. To identify the optimal combination of reference genes, we evaluated the expression of COL1A1. Although the use of different reference gene combinations yielded variable normalized quantities, the relative quantities within sample groups were similar and confirmed that no obvious differences were observed when using 2, 3 or 4 reference genes. Consequently, the use of 2 stable reference genes for normalization, especially HPRT1 and B2M, is a reliable method for evaluating gene expression by RT-qPCR.

Introduction

Shoulder dislocation occurs in 1 to 2% of the population [1], and traumatic injuries account for 95% of shoulder dislocation episodes [2]. These shoulder injuries are frequently observed in young athletes that are involved in competitive sports [3], and shoulder instability (SI) is often observed after the initial episode of shoulder dislocation, with a recurrence rate of up to 100% in young athletes [4], [5].

After episodes of shoulder dislocation, SI patients present plastic deformation of the glenohumeral capsule [6], [7]. Although the antero-inferior (AI) region of the capsule is the most frequently injured site [7], [8], previous macroscopic analysis of the collagen fiber bundle architecture in the AI region of the glenohumeral capsule revealed that a system of bundles spirally crossing one another permits the entire capsule to resist tensile and shear loads [9]. As a result, there is a reciprocal load-sharing relationship within the capsule whereby tensile load in either the anterior or superior structures is concomitant with laxity in the posterior (P) or inferior portion, respectively [7], suggesting that different portions of the capsule may be modified in traumatic anterior SI cases.

Currently, little is known about capsule biology, especially in patients with SI. An improved understanding of the underlying biology will be important for guiding patient management and development of new therapeutic options that will be complementary to surgery. Our group recently began investigating alterations in gene expression in SI, as gene expression analysis has previously been used to increase understanding of the molecular events involved in other traumatic sport injuries such as ligament [10], [11] and tendon injuries (for a review, see [12]).

As a result of its accuracy, sensitivity and capacity for high throughput analysis, reverse-transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) is currently considered to be the gold standard technique for evaluation of gene expression [13]; furthermore, this technique is commonly used to validate data obtained by other methods [14].

To obtain reliable data using RT-qPCR, gene expression levels must be normalized using internal controls within each sample [15]. The use of one or more reference genes can correct biases caused by variations in the complementary DNA (cDNA) input or the efficiency of reverse transcription or amplification. Ideally, reference genes should be stably expressed or at least vary only slightly in expression in all tissues or cells under the conditions of the experiment [16].

Although several genes are commonly used as controls (e.g., GAPDH and ACTB), they can also be regulated and expressed at varying levels [17]. Because the quality of data from gene expression analyses is affected by the quality of reference genes used, it is recommended that reference gene expression stability be validated for each target tissue and disease [18], [19].

The suitability of reference genes has been evaluated in some human musculoskeletal disease such as osteoarthritic articular cartilage (hip and knee) [20], human lumbar vertebral endplate with modic changes [21] and skeletal muscle with chronic degenerative changes [22]. However, to our knowledge no previous studies have identified the best individual or set of reference genes for gene expression analysis from samples of shoulder capsules.

In this study, we assessed the suitability of six reference genes frequently used in the literature (ACTB, B2M, GAPDH, HPRT1, TBP and TFRC) using samples from 3 sites within the glenohumeral capsule [AI, antero-superior (AS) and P portions] of SI patients and control individuals by analyzing gene stability using 4 freely available software packages.

Materials and Methods

Patients

We tested tissue samples from 13 patients with traumatic anterior SI from São Paulo Hospital of the Federal University of São Paulo (UNIFESP), Brazil. All of the patients were treated with shoulder immobilization for a minimum of 2 weeks following the first episode of shoulder dislocation and underwent arthroscopic surgical treatment for SI.

Additionally, 5 patients who underwent arthroscopically assisted treatment for acromioclavicular dislocation were included in this study as a control group. These patients did not present with any history of SI or signs of SI injury under anesthesia; furthermore, we did not find any radiological indications of glenohumeral capsule alterations. All control patients were physically active. Table 1 displays the main clinical outcomes of the studied cases and controls.

Table 1. Distribution of the clinical outcomes of shoulder instability patients and controls.

Variable Cases Controls
Age at surgery, years (mean ± SD) 28.42±6.21 30.35±14.36
Gender (% of male) 92.3% 100%
Age of onset, years (mean ± SD) 25.83±7.38
Duration of condition, years (mean ± SD) 2.7±3.03
Duration of condition (% of >1 year) 84.6%
Number of injuries (% of >1 dislocation episode) 69.2%
Open in a new tab

The study was approved by the ethics committee of the UNIFESP. Written informed consent with approval of the ethics committee was obtained from all patients prior to specimen collection.

Tissue samples

During the arthroscopic procedures, tissue samples were obtained from the AI, AS and P sites of the glenohumeral capsule of each patient. Biopsy samples from the AI and AS sites were obtained using the scope in the posterior portal and the basket grasper in the anterior portal. The AI specimen was taken from the most inferior region of the glenohumeral capsule next to the inferior glenohumeral ligament, while the AS specimen was taken in the direction of the anterior portal below the biceps tendon, in the rotator interval area. The P specimen was taken in the direction of the posterior portal during evaluation of the posterior capsulolabral complex with the scope in the anterior portal and the basket grasper in the posterior portal.

All tissue specimens were immediately immersed in RNAlater solution (Qiagen, Germany) and stored at -20°C until RNA extraction.

RNA extraction and cDNA synthesis

Total RNA was extracted using an RNeasy mini kit (Qiagen, Germany) according to the manufacturer's protocol. RNA concentration and quality were determined using a Nanodrop ND-1000 (Thermo Scientifc, USA) and the integrity of the RNA was verified by gel electrophoresis on a 1% agarose gel. cDNA was synthesized from 60–100 ng of RNA using a High-Capacity cDNA Archive kit (Life Technologies, USA) according to the manufacturer's protocol.

RT-qPCR

To detect the range of expression of the six candidate reference genes, reactions were performed in triplicate using TaqMan inventoried Assays-on-Demand probes (Life Technologies, USA) and the Applied Biosystems 7500 fast real-time PCR system.

To identify the best combination of reference genes, we also quantified the mRNA expression of a target gene, COL1A1 using the candidate reference genes for normalization. COL1A1 was select as a target gene since it codified the α1 chain of human procollagen type I, which is the most prominent protein of the capsule [23]. In addition, upregulation of COL1A1, as well as other collagen genes and their protein products, has been reported in several joint injuries, including injured Achilles tendon[12], [24], anterior cruciate ligament[25], [26], [27] and rotator cuff tear[11], [28].

For each sample, candidate reference and target genes were run on the same plate to exclude technical variations. The 6 reference genes and target gene are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2. Summary of six reference genes and a target gene.

Gene symbol Name Accesion number Assay* Gene function
ACTB Beta-actin NM_001101.2 4352935E Cytoskeletal structural protein
B2M Beta-2-microglobulin NM_004048.2 4333766T Beta-chain of major histocompatibility complex class I molecules
GAPDH Glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase NM_002046.3 4352934E Oxidoreductase in glycolysis and gluconeogenesis
HPRT1 Hypoxanthine phosphoribosyl-transferase NM_000194.1 4333768T Purine synthesis in salvage pathway
TBP TATA box binding protein NM_003194.3 4333769T RNA polymerase II, transcription factor
TFRC Transferrin receptor (CD71) NM_003234.1 4333770T Cellular iron ion homeostasis
COL1A1 Collagen, type I, alpha 1 NM_000088.3 Hs00164004_m1 Extracellular matrix structural protein
Open in a new tab

*TaqMan probes were purchased as assays-on-demand products for gene expression (Life Technologies, USA).

The expression of COL1A1 across the samples was calculated using the equation 2(−ΔCt), in which [ΔCt (cycle threshold)  =  target gene (collagen) Ct – geometric mean of reference genes Ct].

Analysis of reference gene expression stability

We categorized the tissue samples into the following 12 groups: 1) AI samples from cases (SI patients); 2) AS samples from cases; 3) P samples from cases; 4) all tissue samples from cases; 5) AI samples from controls; 6) AS samples from controls; 7) P samples from controls; 8) all tissue samples from controls; 9) all AI samples; 10) all AS samples; 11) all P samples; and 12) all tissue samples.

For comparisons of candidate reference gene stability we used NormFinder (http://www.mdl.dk/publicationsnormfinder.htm), geNorm (http://medgen.ugent.be/~jvdesomp/genorm/http://medgen.ugent.be/~jvdesomp/genorm/), BestKeeper1 (http://www.gene-quantifcation.de/bestkeeper.html) and DataAssist (http://www.lifetechnologies.com/us/en/home/technical-resources/software-downloads/dataassist-software.html) software programs according to the recommendations of the software guides. NormFinder accounts for both intra- and inter-group variations when evaluating the stability of each single reference gene and assigns lower stability values to the genes that are most stably expressed [29]. geNorm calculates the expression stability value (M) for each gene based on the average pairwise expression ratio between a particular gene and all other reference genes. The most stably expressed gene yields the lowest M value, and then the two most stable reference genes are determined by stepwise exclusion of the least stable gene [15]. Bestkeeper was used to rank the 6 reference genes based on the standard deviation (SD) and coefficient of variance (CV) expressed as a percentage of the cycle threshold (Ct) level [30]. Lastly, DataAssist software provided a metric to measure reference gene stability based on the geNorm algorithm. In contrast to the other programs, DataAssist uses RQ to calculate the stability value of individual candidate reference genes.

GenEx software (http://genex.gene-quantifcation.info/) was used to determine the optimal number of reference genes by calculating the accumulated standard deviation (Acc.SD).

Results

Reference gene expression levels

The distribution of Ct values for each of the 6 candidate reference genes is shown in Figure 1. These genes displayed a wide range of expression levels. ACTB (mean Ct value ± SD  = 21.91±2.327) followed by B2M (22.08±2.436) presented the highest expression levels. In contrast, TFRC (30.11±2.125) and TBP (29.95±2.358) presented the lowest expression levels in glenohumeral capsule samples.

Figure 1. RT-qPCR detection of the expression levels of six reference genes.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

A lower cycle threshold value (Ct) indicates higher gene expression. AI: antero-inferior region of the glenohumeral capsule; AS: antero-superior region of the glenohumeral capsule; P: posterior region of the glenohumeral capsule.

Reference gene expression stability

Table 3 displays the stability value ranking of the single candidate reference genes as determined by the different software packages. In our analysis, all reference genes for all analysis groups presented M values less than the geNorm threshold of 1.5 that is recognized as stable.

Table 3. Ranking of the candidate single reference genes by each software package used.

NormFinder geNorm BestKeeper DataAssist
Stability value* Ranking M value* Ranking CV* Ranking Score* Ranking
AI samples of cases
0.193 HPRT1 0.419 TFRC 4.59 TFRC 0.782 GAPDH
0.350 ACTB 0.419 GAPDH 5.55 TBP 0.814 HPRT1
0.414 TFRC 0.488 HPRT1 5.57 GAPDH 0.8355 ACTB
0.435 GAPDH 0.503 ACTB 6.15 HPRT1 1.055 TBP
0.599 B2M 0.572 B2M 7.16 ACTB 1.131 TFRC
0.607 TBP 0.624 TBP 9.13 B2M 1.467 B2M
AS samples of cases
0.276 HPRT1 0.246 HPRT1 4.10 TFRC 0.768 GAPDH
0.293 GAPDH 0.246 B2M 4.43 TBP 0.823 HPRT1
0.463 TBP 0.444 GAPDH 4.72 HPRT1 0.869 ACTB
0.478 B2M 0.528 TBP 5.06 GAPDH 0.923 TFRC
0.486 TFRC 0.562 TFRC 5.18 ACTB 0.933 TBP
0.593 ACTB 0.611 ACTB 6.39 B2M 1.611 B2M
P samples of cases
0.179 HPRT1 0.337 B2M 4.41 TFRC 0.861 HPRT1
0.468 B2M 0.337 ACTB 5.39 HPRT1 0.987 TBP
0.520 ACTB 0.359 HPRT1 5.91 TBP 1.087 GAPDH
0.521 TBP 0.488 TBP 6.76 GAPDH 1.101 ACTB
0.610 TFRC 0.619 TFRC 7.70 ACTB 1.193 TFRC
0.933 GAPDH 0.752 GAPDH 7.88 B2M 1.462 B2M
All samples of cases
0.134 HPRT1 0.377 HPRT1 4.36 TFRC 0.836 HPRT1
0.224 B2M 0.377 B2M 5.36 TBP 0.913 GAPDH
0.246 TBP 0.523 ACTB 5.50 HPRT1 0.958 ACTB
0.254 ACTB 0.599 TBP 5.87 GAPDH 1.012 TBP
0.251 GAPDH 0.666 TFRC 6.83 ACTB 1.091 TFRC
0.275 TFRC 0.705 GAPDH 7.92 B2M 1.493 B2M
AI samples of controls
0.021 TBP 0.215 TBP 7.10 TBP 0.787 HPRT1
0.204 HPRT1 0.215 HPRT1 7.44 TFRC 0.798 ACTB
0.279 ACTB 0.321 ACTB 7.61 HPRT1 0.943 TBP
0.353 B2M 0.389 B2M 8.15 GAPDH 0.953 GAPDH
0.447 GAPDH 0.410 GAPDH 8.58 ACTB 1.110 TFRC
0.556 TFRC 0.471 TFRC 9.70 B2M 2.036 B2M
AS samples of controls
0.265 B2M 0.221 HPRT1 4.85 TFRC 1.063 HPRT1
0.358 HPRT1 0.221 B2M 4.79 TBP 1.144 GAPDH
0.402 TBP 0.364 TBP 6.13 HPRT1 1.180 ACTB
0.436 ACTB 0.470 GAPDH 6.92 GAPDH 1.199 TFRC
0.458 GAPDH 0.530 ACTB 7.23 B2M 1.249 TBP
0.491 TFRC 0.561 TFRC 7.94 ACTB 1.4613 B2M
P samples of controls
0.263 TBP 0.617 TFRC 3.85 HPRT1 1.301 TBP
0.303 TFRC 0.617 TBP 4.69 TFRC 1.351 HPRT1
0.574 HPRT1 0.685 HPRT1 4.73 TBP 1.582 ACTB
0.876 B2M 0.801 B2M 5.20 ACTB 1.639 GAPDH
0.946 ACTB 0.893 ACTB 5.66 GAPDH 1.702 TFRC
1.335 GAPDH 1.064 GAPDH 7.06 B2M 1.887 B2M
All samples of controls
0.264 HPRT1 0.460 TBP 5.44 TBP 1.164 TBP
0.345 TFRC 0.460 B2M 5.62 TFRC 1.190 HPRT1
0.370 TBP 0.573 ACTB 5.77 HPRT1 1.244 ACTB
0.422 ACTB 0.637 HPRT1 7.25 ACTB 1.457 GAPDH
0.457 B2M 0.667 TFRC 7.27 GAPDH 1.599 TFRC
0.731 GAPDH 0.843 GAPDH 7.86 B2M 1.812 B2M
All AI samples
0.169 TBP 0.467 GAPDH 5.33 TFRC 0.833 HPRT1
0.207 HPRT1 0.467 ACTB 6.70 TBP 0.880 GAPDH
0.244 ACTB 0.541 HPRT1 6.99 HPRT1 0.852 ACTB
0.250 B2M 0.577 TBP 7.64 GAPDH 1.044 TBP
0.388 GAPDH 0.608 B2M 8.91 ACTB 1.161 TFRC
0.400 TFRC 0.631 TFRC 9.90 B2M 1.658 B2M
All AS samples
0.118 HPRT1 0.270 HPRT1 5.02 TBP 0.891 HPRT1
0.125 B2M 0.270 B2M 5.19 TFRC 0.932 GAPDH
0.143 GAPDH 0.460 GAPDH 5.93 HPRT1 0.998 ACTB
0.154 TBP 0.517 TBP 6.24 GAPDH 1.045 TBP
0.177 TFRC 0.555 TFRC 6.93 ACTB 1.046 TFRC
0.180 ACTB 0.598 ACTB 7.62 B2M 1.549 B2M
All P samples
0.183 TFRC 0.489 B2M 5.45 TFRC 1.000 HPRT1
0.191 HPRT1 0.489 ACTB 5.94 HPRT1 1.075 TBP
0.222 TBP 0.611 HPRT1 6.48 TBP 1.244 ACTB
0.294 B2M 0.633 TBP 6.59 GAPDH 1.27 GAPDH
0.328 ACTB 0.710 TFRC 8.54 B2M 1.322 TFRC
0.471 GAPDH 0.864 GAPDH 8.61 ACTB 1.546 B2M
All samples
0.056 HPRT1 0.494 HPRT1 5.31 TFRC 0.926 HPRT1
0.094 TBP 0.494 B2M 6.12 TBP 1.079 ACTB
0.098 TFRC 0.594 TBP 6.25 HPRT1 1.087 TBP
0.119 ACTB 0.626 ACTB 6.88 GAPDH 1.114 GAPDH
0.119 B2M 0.678 TFRC 8.13 ACTB 1.1927 TFRC
0.199 GAPDH 0.756 GAPDH 8.68 B2M 1.586 B2M
Open in a new tab

*A lower value indicates higher stability in gene expression. AI: antero-inferior region of the glenohumeral capsule; AS: antero-superior region of the glenohumeral capsule; P: posterior region of the glenohumeral capsule.

For most of the analysis groups, the various software packages suggested different single best reference genes, and all four software packages generated different rankings of reference gene stability for each analysis group.

Typically, gene expression studies compare transcript levels between case (i.e., the injured tissue) and control samples. When considering the AI samples, no single gene was repeatedly identified as being the best reference gene by the various software packages. In contrast, NormFinder, geNorm and DataAssist each identified HPRT1 as the most stable gene in AS samples, and NormFinder and BestKeeper both identified TFRC as the most stable gene in P samples.

In some studies, researchers have investigated a possible association between gene expression and clinical variables. In the present study, HPRT1, followed by B2M was the most suitable reference gene for the different tissue categories from cases. For the tissue categories from controls, TBP and HPRT1 were the most stable reference genes.

When all 54 samples were considered, HPRT1 and B2M (M value  = 0.494) were identified as the most stably expressed reference genes by geNorm, and HPRT1 was also identified as the most stable reference gene by the NormFinder and DataAssist software. Moreover, HPRT1 was the gene most frequently identified as a suitable reference gene when considering all the analysis groups.

Table 4 displays the best combinations of reference genes as suggested by the 4 software packages. Overall, HPRT1 and B2M were the most suitable reference genes, and this pair of genes was the most frequently identified when evaluating all cases or all samples, as well as when evaluating only AS samples. In contrast, GAPDH and ACTB was the most frequently identified pair from the analysis of AI samples; ACTB and B2M was the most frequently identified pair from the analysis of P samples; and TBP and B2M was the most frequently identified pair of reference genes when all controls were evaluated simultaneously.

Table 4. Best pair of reference genes according to each software for each group of sample.

Samples Best pair of reference genes by software
NormFinder geNorm BestKeeper DataAssist
AI samples of cases HPRT1 + ACTB TFRC + GAPDH HPRT1 + B2M GAPDH + ACTB
AS samples of cases HPRT1 + GAPDH HPRT1 + B2M HPRT1 + B2M HPRT1 + GAPDH
P samples of cases HPRT1 + B2M ACTB + B2M HPRT1 + B2M HPRT1 + ACTB
All samples of cases HPRT1 + B2M HPRT1 + B2M HPRT1 + B2M HPRT1 + ACTB
AI samples of controls HPRT1 + TBP HPRT1 + TBP TBP + ACTB HPRT1 + ACTB
AS samples of controls HPRT1 + B2M HPRT1 + B2M HPRT1 + B2M TBP + TFRC
P samples of controls TBP + TFRC TBP + TFRC TBP + TFRC/TBP + B2M TBP + TFRC
All samples of controls HPRT1 + TFRC TBP + B2M TBP + B2M HPRT1 + TBP
All AI samples HPRT1 + TBP GAPDH + ACTB HPRT1 + B2M GAPDH + ACTB
All AS samples HPRT1 + B2M HPRT1 + B2M HPRT1 + B2M GAPDH + ACTB
All P samples HPRT1 + TFRC ACTB + B2M ACTB + B2M TBP + TFRC
All samples HPRT1 + TBP HPRT1 + B2M HPRT1 + B2M HPRT1 + ACTB
Open in a new tab

AI: antero-inferior region of the glenohumeral capsule; AS: antero-superior region of the glenohumeral capsule; P: posterior region of the glenohumeral capsule.

The 4 software packages only indicated up to 2 genes as the best combination of reference genes. We used the GenEx software package to determine if reliable normalization would require more than 2 reference genes. In this analysis the optimal number of reference genes is indicated by the lowest SD, and with the exception of the analysis of P site samples from controls, the Acc.SD of 2 reference genes did not differ more than 0.1 from the observed metric when using more than 2 genes (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Accumulated standard deviation for the 6 reference genes in glenohumeral capsule samples.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Lower values of accumulated standard deviation (Acc.SD) indicate the optimal number of reference gene as estimated by the GenEx software package. AI: antero-inferior region of the glenohumeral capsule; AS: antero-superior region of the glenohumeral capsule; P: posterior region of the glenohumeral capsule.

Effects of reference gene choice

To validate the selection of the appropriate reference genes for normalization, an expression analysis was performed comparing data from samples of patients with shoulder instability to controls for the three capsule sites. This analysis was performed using COL1A1 as a target gene in all the analyses. As reference genes, we used the most frequently identified pairs described above. We also performed the COL1A1 expression analysis using 3 reference genes (HPRT1 + B2M + ACTB) and 4 reference genes (HPRT1 + B2M + ACTB + TBP).

Although the normalized expression quantities differed between the various combinations of reference genes, the distributions of COL1A1 expression in the studied samples were similar (Figure 3). Moreover, COL1A1 expression was significantly increased in the AS and P sites of the glenohumeral capsule of cases compared to the controls using all the reference genes combinations described above (p<0.05 for all analyses using the Mann-Whitney test; Table 5). Regardless of the reference gene combination used, COL1A1 expression in the capsule AI site did not differ between cases and controls (p>0.05 using the Mann-Whitney test for all analyses; Table 5).

Figure 3. COL1A1 expression normalized by different combinations of candidate reference genes in glenohumeral capsule specimens.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

AI: antero-inferior region of the glenohumeral capsule; AS: antero-superior region of the glenohumeral capsule; P: posterior region of the glenohumeral capsule.

Table 5. COL1A1 expression normalized by different combinations of reference genes in the glenohumeral capsule of patients with shoulder instability and controls.

Reference genes COL1A1 expression
AI AS P
Cases (median ± IQR) Controls (median ± IQR) p-value Cases (median ± IQR) Controls (median ± IQR) p-value Cases (median ± IQR) Controls (median ± IQR) p-value
HPRT1 + B2M 10.79±33.54 2.13±27.24 0.173 8.47±14.31 1.81±1.92 0.001* 10.77±15.08 1.86±1.30 0.007*
ACTB + GAPDH 2.45±3.23 0.65±4.99 0.208 2.20±2.07 0.42±0.53 0.003* 2.33±1.69 0.33±0.29 0.002*
TBP + B2M 18.39±46.76 3.95±46.42 0.143 11.99±29.76 3.10±3.02 0.001* 18.32±19.27 3.24±3.86 0.014*
ACTB + B2M 1.09±2.23 0.25±2.36 0.153 1.06±1.71 0.19±0.18 0.002* 1.08±1.91 0.22±0.17 0.014*
HPRT1 + B2M + ACTB 4.91±11.07 1.04±11.07 0.173 4.57±7.42 0.82±0.86 0.001* 4.81±7.43 0.91±0.44 0.007*
HPRT1 + ACTB + B2M + TBP 14.12±29.27 2.9±31.30 0.143 10.29±20.54 2.35±2.35 0.001* 14.71±16.46 2.48±1.47 0.010*
Open in a new tab

AI: antero-inferior region of the glenohumeral capsule; AS: antero-superior region of the glenohumeral capsule; P: posterior region of the glenohumeral capsule; IQR: interquartile range. *p<0.05 by Man-Whitney test.

Discussion

Our group recently began investigating the molecular alterations involved in shoulder instability and other orthopedic lesions. We hypothesized that misregulated expression of several genes may have a role in the capsular deformation observed in SI patients and that such molecular alterations may explain the high rate of shoulder dislocation recurrence after the first episode of traumatic dislocation. Additionally, an increased understanding of gene expression modification in response to injury may aid in determination of patient prognosis and in the development of new treatment strategies.

RT-qPCR is one of the most commonly utilized approaches in functional genomics research, and its use in gene expression analysis may become routine. However, many authors do not critically evaluate their RT-qPCR experiments, and as a result, the experiments are improperly designed and difficult to repeat due to insufficient data quality [31]. To minimize the influence of differences between samples in the extraction of mRNA, reverse transcription and PCR [17], is necessary to normalize target gene expression by a known factor. Consequently, the use of suitable reference genes with stable expression in the studied tissue (normal and/or injured) is essential for effective data normalization and the acquisition of accurate and meaningful biological data.

Reference genes have been described for RT-qPCR studies in several diseases and tissues [20], [21], [22], [32], [33], [34], [35], and our group recently identified the most stable reference genes in gastric neoplastic and non-neoplastic samples, as well as in gastric cancer cell lines [36]. To the best of our knowledge, no prior study has sought to identify suitable reference genes for gene expression analysis in the glenohumeral capsule.

In the present study, we used 4 software packages (NormFinder, geNorm, BestKeeper, and DataAssist) to evaluate the stability of reference gene expression. Each software package uses distinct algorithms, and as a result, different results can be expected. Therefore, it is important to use more than one software package to identify the most suitable reference genes among a set of candidates. Although the 4 software packages differed in their rankings of reference gene stability as well as in the identity of the most suitable pair, at least two programs produced results that agreed for almost all the analyses. Our results demonstrate that the use of 4 statistical tools aids the identification of the best reference genes.

In the different groups of analyses, HPRT1 seems to be the most suitable gene overall; however, it is increasingly clear that in most situations a single reference gene is not sufficiently stable [37]. When a larger number of reference genes is used, the SD of the normalization factor (mean of reference gene expression) is reduced and the random variation among the expression of tested is partially cancelled.

Using the GenEx software, we observed that the Acc.SD of 2 reference genes differed no more than 0.1 from that observed in most of the analysis groups when 3, 4, 5 or 6 reference genes were used. Inclusion of additional reference genes increases the time and money required for analysis; therefore, it is important to consider the degree of improvement and overall noise contributed by reference genes when deciding how many reference genes are required. Considering that the reproducibility of real-time PCR equipment is rarely less than 0.1 cycle (estimated as SD of technical replicates), we believe that the use of more than two reference genes does not significantly improve the data quality.

Only for the analysis of the control glenohumeral capsule P site was the Acc.SD using 6 genes higher than 0.1 in comparison to the use of 2 reference genes, meaning that the use of fewer reference genes is also the most appropriate for this sample group.

Although different pairs of reference genes were determined to be the most suitable for the various analysis groups, the combination of HPRT1 and B2M was the most frequently identified pair. Furthermore, our results demonstrated that HPRT1 and B2M was the best gene pair for comparisons requiring the use of a combination of reference genes for analysis of samples of different portions of the glenohumeral capsule from patients with and without SI.

To identify the best combination of reference genes, we evaluated COL1A1 expression in samples from the AI, AS and P sites of the glenohumeral capsules of cases and controls. To normalize COL1A1 expression, we paired HPRT1 and B2M; GAPDH and ACTB; ACTB and B2M and TBP and B2M. Furthermore we normalized COL1A1 expression using the 3 and 4 most stable genes to evaluate the effects of increasing the number of reference genes. Within the case and control groups, no obvious differences in COL1A1 expression were observed when normalized with different combinations of reference genes. Moreover, statistical comparison revealed that COL1A1 expression differed between the case and control samples from the AS and P capsule portions independently of which reference gene combination was used for normalization.

Therefore, our results show that combinations of 2 genes can be used for the analysis of glenohumeral capsule samples and that it is not necessary to use 3 or more reference genes. However, it should be noted that all the reference genes presented an M value less than the geNorm threshold of 1.5 recognized as stable under the different experimental conditions tested.

Our study presented some limitations. First, we only included a limited number of candidate reference genes, and it is likely that some other genes may be also used as internal references for gene expression studies in glenohumeral capsule samples from patients with or without history of shoulder dislocation. Second, our results only apply directly to glenohumeral capsule. It is unclear how well our results could be extended to other joint capsules. Therefore, when new cohorts of tissue samples are used, we suggest performing specific gene expression studies, in order to identify the most stable reference genes to be used for normalization. However, it is important to highlight that our results may be relevant to the study of SI, as well as to the study of the normal glenohumeral capsule.

Conclusions

In the present study, we evaluated the suitability of reference genes using samples of glenohumeral capsules from individuals with and without history of shoulder dislocation episodes. Examining the different analysis groups, HPRT1 appears to be the most suitable reference gene. We observed that 2 reference genes, especially HPRT1 and B2M, might be used in combination for accurate normalization of RT-qPCR data in studies of molecular alterations in the glenohumeral capsule of SI patients. The results of this work may benefit future studies of the glenohumeral capsule that require more accurate gene expression quantification in this tissue.

Data Availability

The authors confirm that all data underlying the findings are fully available without restriction. All relevant data are within the paper.

Funding Statement

This study was supported by Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq; MC and MACS) and Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP; MFL, and MC) as grants and fellowship awards. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1. Kazar B, Relovszky E (1969) Prognosis of primary dislocation of the shoulder. Acta Orthop Scand 40: 216–224. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Hayes K, Callanan M, Walton J, Paxinos A, Murrell GA (2002) Shoulder instability: management and rehabilitation. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 32: 497–509. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Buss DD, Lynch GP, Meyer CP, Huber SM, Freehill MQ (2004) Nonoperative management for in-season athletes with anterior shoulder instability. Am J Sports Med 32: 1430–1433. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Larrain MV, Botto GJ, Montenegro HJ, Mauas DM (2001) Arthroscopic repair of acute traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation in young athletes. Arthroscopy 17: 373–377. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. te Slaa RL, Wijffels MP, Brand R, Marti RK (2004) The prognosis following acute primary glenohumeral dislocation. J Bone Joint Surg Br 86: 58–64. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Hovelius L, Eriksson K, Fredin H, Hagberg G, Hussenius A, et al. (1983) Recurrences after initial dislocation of the shoulder. Results of a prospective study of treatment. J Bone Joint Surg Am 65: 343–349. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Wang VM, Flatow EL (2005) Pathomechanics of acquired shoulder instability: a basic science perspective. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 14: 2S–11S. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Burkart AC, Debski RE (2002) Anatomy and function of the glenohumeral ligaments in anterior shoulder instability. Clin Orthop Relat Res: 32–39. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 9. Gohlke F, Essigkrug B, Schmitz F (1994) The pattern of the collagen fiber bundles of the capsule of the glenohumeral joint. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 3: 111–128. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Lo IK, Marchuk LL, Hart DA, Frank CB (1998) Comparison of mRNA levels for matrix molecules in normal and disrupted human anterior cruciate ligaments using reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction. J Orthop Res 16: 421–428. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Shirachi I, Gotoh M, Mitsui Y, Yamada T, Nakama K, et al. (2011) Collagen production at the edge of ruptured rotator cuff tendon is correlated with postoperative cuff integrity. Arthroscopy 27: 1173–1179. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Xu Y, Murrell GA (2008) The basic science of tendinopathy. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466: 1528–1538. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Derveaux S, Vandesompele J, Hellemans J (2010) How to do successful gene expression analysis using real-time PCR. Methods 50: 227–230. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Kozera B, Rapacz M (2013) Reference genes in real-time PCR. J Appl Genet 54: 391–406. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Vandesompele J, De Preter K, Pattyn F, Poppe B, Van Roy N, et al. (2002) Accurate normalization of real-time quantitative RT-PCR data by geometric averaging of multiple internal control genes. Genome Biol 3: RESEARCH0034. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Li YL, Ye F, Hu Y, Lu WG, Xie X (2009) Identification of suitable reference genes for gene expression studies of human serous ovarian cancer by real-time polymerase chain reaction. Anal Biochem 394: 110–116. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Huggett J, Dheda K, Bustin S, Zumla A (2005) Real-time RT-PCR normalisation; strategies and considerations. Genes Immun 6: 279–284. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Bustin SA, Mueller R (2005) Real-time reverse transcription PCR (qRT-PCR) and its potential use in clinical diagnosis. Clin Sci (Lond) 109: 365–379. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Hruz T, Wyss M, Docquier M, Pfaffl MW, Masanetz S, et al. (2011) RefGenes: identification of reliable and condition specific reference genes for RT-qPCR data normalization. BMC Genomics 12: 156. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Pombo-Suarez M, Calaza M, Gomez-Reino JJ, Gonzalez A (2008) Reference genes for normalization of gene expression studies in human osteoarthritic articular cartilage. BMC Mol Biol 9: 17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Zhou ZJ, Zhang JF, Xia P, Wang JY, Chen S, et al. (2014) Selection of suitable reference genes for normalization of quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction in human cartilage endplate of the lumbar spine. PLoS One 9: e88892. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Yuzbasioglu A, Onbasilar I, Kocaefe C, Ozguc M (2010) Assessment of housekeeping genes for use in normalization of real time PCR in skeletal muscle with chronic degenerative changes. Exp Mol Pathol 88: 326–329. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Kaltsas DS (1983) Comparative study of the properties of the shoulder joint capsule with those of other joint capsules. Clin Orthop Relat Res: 20–26. [PubMed]
  • 24. Eriksen HA, Pajala A, Leppilahti J, Risteli J (2002) Increased content of type III collagen at the rupture site of human Achilles tendon. J Orthop Res 20: 1352–1357. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Clements DN, Carter SD, Innes JF, Ollier WE, Day PJ (2008) Gene expression profiling of normal and ruptured canine anterior cruciate ligaments. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 16: 195–203. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Bramono DS, Richmond JC, Weitzel PP, Chernoff H, Martin I, et al. (2005) Characterization of transcript levels for matrix molecules and proteases in ruptured human anterior cruciate ligaments. Connect Tissue Res 46: 53–65. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Lo IK, Marchuk L, Hart DA, Frank CB (2003) Messenger ribonucleic acid levels in disrupted human anterior cruciate ligaments. Clin Orthop Relat Res: 249–258. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 28. Lo IK, Boorman R, Marchuk L, Hollinshead R, Hart DA, et al. (2005) Matrix molecule mRNA levels in the bursa and rotator cuff of patients with full-thickness rotator cuff tears. Arthroscopy 21: 645–651. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Andersen CL, Jensen JL, Orntoft TF (2004) 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 64: 5245–5250. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Pfaffl MW, Tichopad A, Prgomet C, Neuvians TP (2004) Determination of stable housekeeping genes, differentially regulated target genes and sample integrity: BestKeeper–Excel-based tool using pair-wise correlations. Biotechnol Lett 26: 509–515. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31. Bustin SA (2010) Why the need for qPCR publication guidelines? – The case for MIQE. Methods 50: 217–226. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Lyng MB, Laenkholm AV, Pallisgaard N, Ditzel HJ (2008) Identification of genes for normalization of real-time RT-PCR data in breast carcinomas. BMC Cancer 8: 20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33. Rubie C, Kempf K, Hans J, Su T, Tilton B, et al. (2005) Housekeeping gene variability in normal and cancerous colorectal, pancreatic, esophageal, gastric and hepatic tissues. Mol Cell Probes 19: 101–109. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34. Fu J, Bian L, Zhao L, Dong Z, Gao X, et al. (2010) Identification of genes for normalization of quantitative real-time PCR data in ovarian tissues. Acta Biochim Biophys Sin (Shanghai) 42: 568–574. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35. Wang Q, Ishikawa T, Michiue T, Zhu BL, Guan DW, et al. (2012) Stability of endogenous reference genes in postmortem human brains for normalization of quantitative real-time PCR data: comprehensive evaluation using geNorm, NormFinder, and BestKeeper. Int J Legal Med 126: 943–952. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36. Wisnieski F, Calcagno DQ, Leal MF, dos Santos LC, Gigek Cde O, et al. (2013) Reference genes for quantitative RT-PCR data in gastric tissues and cell lines. World J Gastroenterol 19: 7121–7128. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37. de Jonge HJ, Fehrmann RS, de Bont ES, Hofstra RM, Gerbens F, et al. (2007) Evidence based selection of housekeeping genes. PLoS One 2: e898. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The authors confirm that all data underlying the findings are fully available without restriction. All relevant data are within the paper.

Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

RESOURCES