Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Mar 11;16(3):e0233821. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233821

Validation of suitable genes for normalization of diurnal gene expression studies in Chenopodium quinoa

Nathaly Maldonado-Taipe 1, Dilan S R Patirange 1, Sandra M Schmöckel 2,3, Christian Jung 1, Nazgol Emrani 1,*
Editor: Christian Schönbach4
PMCID: PMC7951847  PMID: 33705394

Abstract

Quinoa depicts high nutritional quality and abiotic stress resistance, attracting strong interest in the last years. To unravel the function of candidate genes for agronomically relevant traits, studying their transcriptional activities by RT-qPCR is an important experimental approach. The accuracy of such experiments strongly depends on precise data normalization. To date, validation of potential candidate genes for normalization of diurnal expression studies has not been performed in C. quinoa. We selected eight candidate genes based on transcriptome data and literature survey, including conventionally used reference genes. We used three statistical algorithms (BestKeeper, geNorm and NormFinder) to test their stability and added further validation by a simulation-based strategy. We demonstrated that using different reference genes, including those top ranked by stability, causes significant differences among the resulting diurnal expression patterns. Our results show that isocitrate dehydrogenase enzyme (IDH-A) and polypyrimidine tract-binding protein (PTB) are suitable genes to normalize diurnal expression data of two different quinoa accessions. Moreover, we validated our reference genes by normalizing two known diurnally regulated genes, BTC1 and BBX19. The validated reference genes obtained in this study will improve the accuracy of RT-qPCR data normalization and facilitate gene expression studies in quinoa.

1. Introduction

Real time quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) is a widely used method, which allows the study of gene expression through quantification of nucleic acids. Normalization of RT-qPCR expression data can be carried out using reference genes. Ideally, the reference gene expression should remain constant or vary minimally in various tissues under the different experimental treatments. However, it has been shown that the utility of the reference genes must be validated for different experimental conditions [15], and that normalization against a non-validated reference gene can disprove quantitative results [6]. Screening of an adequate reference gene can be performed by statistical algorithms developed for this purpose. The most popular algorithms are geNorm [7], NormFinder [8] and BestKeeper [9]. geNorm calculates an average expression stability, which is defined as the average pairwise variation in a particular gene with all other potential reference genes, whileNormFinder identifies stably expressed genes based on a mathematical model that enables the estimation of the intra and inter-group variation of the sample set, and BestKeeper calculates the standard deviation (SD) and a coefficient of variance (CV) as a measure of stability. Reference genes under different experimental conditions have been found through the use of these algorithms for a variety of crops such as lettuce [10], pea [4], barley [11], peach [3], maize [12], rice [13], pineapple [2] and others.

Many developmental processes are under the influence of the circadian clock. The circadian clock genes supply information on the daily environmental changes and provide plants with the ability to regulate the time of consumption and production of energy. Thus, the circadian system manipulation is a strategy for optimizing plant growth and yield and overcoming environmental stress [14, 15]. The study of the circadian clock by diurnal gene expression through RT-qPCR implies a careful and rigorous selection of reference genes. It has been shown that a reference gene that has been qualified as stable could depict diurnal expression patterns. When such a gene is used to normalize expression data, it causes considerable changes in the expression profiles of the target genes [16].

Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) is a dicotyledonous annual species from the family Amaranthaceae. It has an allotetraploid genome (1.39 Gb) presumably originating from the diploid species Chenopodium pallidicaule (A-genome) and Chenopodium suecicum (B-genome) [17]. Quinoa has high protein content and an exceptional balance between oil, protein and fat. It also supplies balanced amounts of the amino acid lysine along with the other eight essential amino acids [18]. This, together with its great adaptability to extreme climatic and soil conditions, conveys significant potential for quinoa production expansion around the world [19]. To date, no reference genes validation has been performed for diurnal expression studies in C. quinoa.

Because normalization against an unsuitable reference gene could produce false expression patterns for the target genes [6], in this study we addressed the question of which reference genes are suitable to normalize diurnal expression data in C. quinoa. To answer this question, we selected eight candidate reference genes and used three statistical algorithms (geNorm, NormFinder and BestKeeper) to test their stability. We performed further validation by normalizing the expression data of DOUBLE B-BOX TYPE ZINC FINGER (BBX19) and BOLTING TIME CONTROL 1 (BTC1), homologs of known diurnally regulated genes that control flowering time regulation in sugar beet [20]. Considering the close phylogenetic relationship between quinoa and sugar beet, we expected these genes to be diurnally regulated in quinoa as well. We normalized the expression of these target genes against each of the candidate reference genes followed by a comparison between the obtained expression profiles and a model expression profile, which we refer to as “simulation”. Additionally, we used our selected reference genes to normalize the expression of the photoperiod-response gene GIGANTEA (GI). This work meticulously validated reference genes to facilitate and fortify diurnal gene expression analysis in different accessions of C. quinoa.

2. Materials and methods

In the present work, we followed the Minimum Information for Publication of Quantitative Real-Time PCR Experiments (MIQE) guidelines [21].

2.1 Plant material, growth conditions and tissue sampling

For our main analyses, we considered two C. quinoa accessions from different origins: a short day Peruvian accession (CHEN-109; seed code: 170083), which flowered 69 days after sowing and a Danish accession (Titicaca; seed code: 170191), which is adapted to long day conditions and flowered 38 days after sowing. A third accession from Argentina (PI-587173; seed code: 171605), which flowered 52 days after sowing, was used to prove the broad applicability of the selected reference genes. The seeds were kindly provided by Prof. Mark Tester, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, Saudi Arabia. One hundred plants per accession were sown in 9 cm pots on February 16th, 2018. The plants grew in growth chamber under short day conditions (8 h light at 22°C, light intensity 120 μE). We performed diurnal sampling of leaves from 5 plants/ accession (A and B samples) every two hours at BBCH 51 (inflorescence emergence stage) [22]. Sampling was performed 24 days after sowing for CHEN-109 and 46 days after sowing for Titicaca. A young leaf sample between 1.0 and 2.0 cm2 was obtained, placed in a 2 ml Eppendorf tube and immersed into liquid nitrogen. Samples were kept at -70°C until RNA extraction.

2.2 RNA isolation and cDNA synthesis

From a total of 13 sampling points described in the previous section, we isolated RNA from seven time points. Total RNA was extracted from three biological replicates of each accession for the Zeitgeber points ZT-0, ZT-4, ZT-8, ZT-12, ZT-16, ZT-20 and ZT-24 using the NucleoSpin RNA Plant kit (Macherey-Nagel, Düren, Germany). We performed a DNase I treatment (Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., Waltham, United States) for 30 min at 37°C on the isolated RNA to eliminate DNA contamination. To verify that DNA was removed, we carried out a standard PCR (annealing temperature: 58°C; 40 cycles) for the DNase treated RNA with specific primers designed in intronic regions of BOLTING TIME CONTROL 1 (BTC1) (Gene ID: AUR62041615; Fw: GGAAGAAATCAAGGGTATTGACTCTAGAG, Rv: GAACCATATACAAGCCTTTCTGAGAG). We controlled the RNA integrity through agarose gel electrophoresis (1.5%) and RNA concentration and purity were measured with a NanoDrop 2000 Spectrophotometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., Waltham, United States). An A260/A280 ratio between 2.0 and 2.2 and an A260/A230 ratio higher than 1.7 indicated appropriate RNA quality. Exemplary RNA agarose gels and the A260/A280 and A260/A230 ratios for the Titicaca accession are presented in S1 Fig and S1 Table, respectively. We used the DNase-treated RNA to perform the reverse transcription with the First Strand cDNA Synthesis Kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., Waltham, United States), according to the manufacturer’s instructions. We used the RNA concentration obtained during the NanoDrop analysis to calculate the required volume of every sample to load a final amount of 1 ug of RNA to the reverse transcription process. Later, we used the products of the reverse transcription to perform a standard PCR (annealing temperature: 56°C; 36 cycles; RAN-3 primers in Table 1) followed by agarose gel electrophoresis (2.0%) to verify the success of the cDNA synthesis (S1 Fig). The synthesized cDNA was stored at -20°C for further use.

Table 1. Primer sequences, amplification product size and efficiency of the selected candidate reference genes and the target genes.

Gene ID Gene description Gene abbreviation Primer sequence 5’-3’ (bp) Amplification product size (bp) Amplification efficiency (%) Regression coefficient (R2) Tm (°C)
AUR62005573 ACTIN-11 ACT Fw-GCTGGAAGGTGCTCAGAGATGC 150 92.0 0.925 60
Rv-CGGCGATACCAGGGAACATGG
AUR62005566 GLYCERALDEHYDE-3-PHOSPHATE DEHYDROGENASE, CYTOSOLIC GAPDH* Fw-CGGCTTCCTTCAACATCATTCCTAGC 144 85.5 0.936 60
AUR62024167 Rv-CGGTTGTTGATCTCACTGTCAGGC
AUR62030674 GUANOSINE TRIPHOSPHATE RAN-3* Fw-CTTTGAGAAGCCCTTCCTCTAC 135 107.0 0.969 56
BINDING NUCLEAR PROTEIN RAN-3 Rv-AGCTCTTGTTCATGCCTCTG
AUR62002238 ISOCITRATE DEHYDROGENASE IDH-A Fw-GGACGGACTATTGAAGCTGAAGC 125 80.8 0.996 60
Rv-GCATGGACACGTGGGCTTGC
AUR62037769 ISOCITRATE DEHYDROGENASE IDH-B* Fw-GATCTTGGTCTTCCCCACCG 164 86.8 0.986 57
Rv-GCAAATGTGGAAAAGCCCAAATGG
AUR6203443 POLYPYRIMIDINE TRACT-BINDING PROTEIN PTB Fw-GCAGTGCAACAGGCTCCAAG 143 70.0 0.987 57
Rv-GGCACCTGCACCCTCATG
AUR62007961 TUBULIN ALPHA-1 CHAIN TUB Fw-ACTCCACCAGTGTTGCTGAG 115 132.1 0.958 57
Rv-TCAAACCCTTCCTCCATACC
AUR62015654 POLYUBIQUITIN 10 UBQ Fw-ATCTGGTGCTCCGTTTGAG 114 79.4 0.956 57
Rv-TCTTCGCCTTAACATTGTCG
AUR62041615 DOUBLE B-BOX TYPE ZINC FINGER BBX19* Fw-GAGAAGGAGCAAAATCATGTAG 158 71.7 0.984 55
AUR62036007 Rv-GAATGGACTATGTTCCTGGAAC
AUR62041615 BOLTING TIME CONTROL 1  BTC1 Fw-GCAGCAAAGCAATCCAATTCTGAC 151 85.1 0.945 58
AUR62036007 Rv-GCAAAATCAACAGTCCATGGTTCTC
AUR62034894 GIGANTEA GI* Fw-ATGGGGAGAGTCTGGATTAG 152 101.2 0.961 60
Rv-CAGATCCGTTCTGCTGTATAT

Gene IDs are described according to KAUST Repository: http://www.cbrc.kaust.edu.sa/chenopodiumdb/. Uppercase -A/-B letters in the gene abbreviation describe sub-genome location. Tm = melting temperature. Asterisks show genes for which the primers were designed in different exons.

2.3 Selection of candidate reference genes

We made a literature survey to select potential candidate reference genes. The most commonly used reference genes, preferably the ones that have been previously reported to be efficient in species of the Amaranthacea family, were selected [23, 24]. Afterwards, we validated this list of genes based on the available C. quinoa transcriptome data [17] by selecting those genes, which were stably expressed at least in two out of four stress conditions (low phosphate, salt, drought and heat) for soil- and hydroponic-grown plants within root and shoot tissues (one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s Multiple Comparison Test; α = 0.05) (S2 Table).

We designed paralog-specific primer pairs for amplification of the candidate reference genes except for GAPDH, whose primers were designed in a paralog-conserved region. We designed primers in a paralog-conserved region for the target genes BBX19 and BTC1, while for GI, paralog-specific primers were designed (Table 1). We assessed the primer quality with the OligoCalc program (http://biotools.nubic.northwestern.edu/OligoCalc.html). We considered the following primer quality parameters: length (18–26 bp), similar melting temperature (50–60°C), amplicon length (100–160 bp), GC content (>40%) and lack of self-annealing and primer-dimmer formation. To design the GAPDH primers, a Multiple Sequence Alignment of GAPDH paralogs with CLC Main Workbench (QIAGEN Aarhus, Denmark) was performed with the following parameters; gap open cost: 10, gap extension cost: 1, end gap cost: as any other and very accurate alignment. Whenever it was possible, we designed primers across introns and checked the lack of gDNA amplification by verification of the expected amplification size of the cDNA (Table 1). We verified the specificity of the primers by standard PCR using DNA from Titicaca accession followed by agarose gel electrophoresis. Moreover, we sent the products of locus-specific primers for Sanger sequencing to the Institute for Clinical Molecular Biology (IKMB, Kiel University) and the sequencing results were analyzed with CLC Main Workbench. A further verification of the primer combinations specificity was made by examination of the RT-qPCR melting curves using the Bio-Rad CFX Manager 3.1 software (Bio-Rad Laboratories GmbH, Munich, Germany).

2.4 Quantitative real-time PCR (RT-qPCR) and determination of amplification efficiency

We performed RT-qPCR with a Bio-Rad CFX96 Real-Time System, which has a built-in Bio-Rad C1000 Thermal Cycler (Bio-Rad Laboratories GmbH, Munich, Germany) using Platinum SYBR Green qPCR SuperMix-UDG with ROX (Invitrogen by Life Technologies GmbH, Darmstadt, Germany). Every PCR reaction had a total volume of 20 μl:10 μl of Platinum SYBR Green qPCR SuperMix-UDG, 1 μl of each forward and reverse primer (10 μg), 2 μl of diluted cDNA (1:20 dilution) and 6 μl of ddH2O. The amplification conditions were as follows: 95°C for 3 min as initial denaturation and 40 cycles of: 10 s at 95°C, 20 s at primer pair annealing temperature and 30 s at 72°C. Recording of melting curves was performed from 60°C to 95°C every 0.5°C to confirm primer specificity and lack of primer dimmers. Three technical replicates per sample and per negative control (water) were also loaded. We amplified cDNA dilution series (dilution factors 1:40 (twice), 1:20, 1:10 and 3:20) to generate standard curves for estimation of the correlation coefficient (R2) and the amplification efficiency E=(101slope1)×100. The correlation coefficient (R2) is given for the regression line of the log of the starting quantity (dilution determined; x axis) and the corresponding Cq value (y axis). The standard curves for the reference genes and the target genes BBX19, BTC1 and GI can be found in S2 Fig. Cq values were obtained by setting the baseline threshold to 100. We used the Bio-Rad CFX Manager 3.1 software (Bio-Rad Laboratories GmbH, Munich, Germany).

2.5 Gene stability analysis

We assessed the expression stability of the candidate genes by three algorithms: geNorm [7], NormFinder [8] and BestKeeper [9]. The data used for these analyses were the averaged Cq value of the three biological replicates (three technical replicates each) obtained for seven different Zeitgeber points. For the determination of the stability by geNorm and NormFinder, transformation of the raw Cq values into relative quantities (RQ) was performed as follows:

RQ=EΔCq

where, E represents the PCR efficiency and ΔCq for any given gene is the Cq value of each sample subtracted from the lowest Cq value among all the samples for that gene. In contrast, for the utilization of BestKeeper, the raw non-transformed Cq data were used, as required by the algorithm.

The geNorm algorithm calculates an average expression stability, M-value, which is defined as the average pairwise variation in a particular gene with all other potential reference genes. This software was also used to calculate the minimum number of genes required for normalization, which is given by the pairwise variation as follows:

Vn/Vn+1

where, Vn is the pairwise variation of a given number of reference genes and Vn+1 is the pairwise variation produced when an extra reference gene is added to the analysis. Below the default cut-off value of 0.15, all gene pairs were considered stable and the addition of an extra gene for normalization was not required [7]. NormFinder identifies stably expressed genes based on a mathematical model that enables the estimation of the intra and inter-group variation of the sample set as a stability value (SV) [8]. In order to obtain the best combination of reference genes together with its stability value and the intra and intergroup variations, we added group identifiers to distinguish the expression data of CHEN-109 and Titicaca. In the case of BestKeeper, it helps in selection of the best reference genes after the calculation of the standard deviation (SD) and a coefficient of variance (CV) [9]. Following the algorithms protocols, we considered candidate reference genes with the lowest M, SV and CV values as the most stably expressed genes.

2.6 Validation of the reference genes

To validate the reliability of the top ranked reference genes and to clarify the ambiguous results given by the algorithms, we normalized the expression data of the diurnally regulated genes BBX19 and BTC1 [20] against each of the candidate genes. Additionally, we simulated the expected expression patterns of CqBBX19 and CqBTC1. In the simulation, the Cq values of the target genes were normalized against a constant Cq value of 20, which represents an ideal reference gene. In other words, the Cq value of the candidate reference genes is replaced by a constant value of 20 for all sampling points and biological replicates for the purpose of simulation. Then, a comparison between the simulation and the obtained expression profiles of the target genes was performed. A reference gene was not considered as suitable, when its normalization results differed from the simulation. Number and position of peaks and the change of the expression values between accessions (e.g., when an accession has a higher expression value compared to the other in the simulation, the same feature should be depicted during the actual normalization) were examined. To detect the differences between the obtained expression profiles and the simulation, we performed t-tests (α = 0.05) at every Zeitgeber point between the accessions and one-way ANOVA (α = 0.05) for the number and position of peaks. To further validate the broad suitability of the reference genes, we repeated the same procedure for another target gene, GI, in the accession PI-587173. In this way, one could expect an assortment of diurnal patterns in the investigated target genes: a low peak at the down for BBX19 [20], a high morning peak for BTC1 [25], and a sharp high peak at dawn for GI [26].

Expression levels for all accessions were determined by 2−ΔΔCq method [27]. We designed the primer combinations for CqBBX19, CqBTC1 and CqGI (Table 1) according to the criteria mentioned above and their specificity was assessed in the same way as the previously described for the reference genes primer pairs.

3. Results

3.1 Selection of candidate genes

First, we performed a selection of candidate genes based on a literature survey. We preferentially selected reference genes that have been validated in species of the Amaranthacea family [23, 24]. Afterwards, we validated these genes with C. quinoa transcriptome data, where plants had been grown under abiotic stress conditions [17]. We selected eight candidate reference genes (Table 1), which were stably expressed in root and shoot tissues in at least two out of four stress conditions (S2 Table).

Then, we designed primer combinations and assessed their specificity by standard PCR, Sanger sequencing and melting curve analysis. Out of 23 primer combinations, 16 primer pairs were selected. The specificity of the primer combinations was demonstrated by the presence of a single reaction product of the expected size (S3 Fig), the presence of a single peak in the RT-qPCR melting curve (S4 Fig), and an alignment of the sequenced products to the reference sequence showing one peak per nucleotide (S5 Fig). Amplification efficiencies of the primer combinations varied between 70.0 and 132.1% with regression coefficients (R2) varying from 0.925 to 0.996 (Table 1).

3.2 Diurnal expression profiles of candidate genes

In a next step, we determined the expression profiles of the candidate genes by RT-qPCR and the raw Cq values were used to quantify the expression levels. We choose two accessions from Peru (CHEN-109) and Denmark (Titicaca), because of their different photoperiod sensitivity, which might be related to their geographical origins [28]. We extracted RNA from samples taken during one day at seven different time points for each accession. The expression range across all samples of the eight candidate genes was of 21.23≤Cq≤ 27.98 for CHEN-109 and of 21.19≤ Cq≤ 28.01 for Titicaca (Fig 1). Unexpectedly, the expression profiles of some of the candidate genes across the samples showed clear diurnal patterns for both accessions (Fig 2), implying a low transcript stability over the day. For instance, in Titicaca IDH-B, GAPDH and ACT depicted a peak in their expression pattern at ZT-20 (one-way ANOVA; α = 0.05). Contrarily, in CHEN-109 the transcriptional activities of these genes peaked at different time points (IDH-B at ZT-8) or displayed no diurnal regulation (e.g. GAPDH) (one-way ANOVA; α = 0.05).

Fig 1. Variation in Cq values of the candidate genes.

Fig 1

Cq values were calculated as means of triplicate technical replicates across the 21 diurnal/circadian samples. The median values are represented as lines across the box. The lower and the upper boundaries of each box represent the 25th and 75th percentile, respectively. Whiskers represent the maximum and minimum values. The mean is represented by crosses inside the boxes.

Fig 2. Expression profiles of candidate genes.

Fig 2

Cq values from 21 samples (three technical replicates of three biological replicates) taken at seven different points of the day for (A,C) Titicaca and (B,D) CHEN-109. Two groups of genes are represented: (A,B) high Cq value and (C,D) low Cq value. The bar at the top indicates light (empty box) and dark (filled box) phases. The error bars represent the SEM between biological replicates.

3.3 Expression stability of the candidate genes in two quinoa accessions

We assessed the stability of the candidate genes by three algorithms: geNorm [7], NormFinder [8] and BestKeeper [9]. geNorm and BestKeeper placed PTB and IDH-A as the most stable genes for normalization of Titicaca expression data. On the other hand, the same algorithms placed TUB and IDH-A as the most stable genes for normalization of CHEN-109 expression data (Fig 3). NormFinder determined the most suitable reference gene for the two sets of expression data, simultaneously (Titicaca and CHEN-109), ranking ACT as the most suitable single gene and IDH-A together with TUB as the best combination of genes (stability value 0.035) (Fig 3 and S6 Fig). Additionally, we performed a pairwise variation analysis (cut-off value of 0.15) of the candidate genes for determination of the appropriate number of reference genes by geNorm. The appropriate number of genes required for normalization in this study was two (Fig 4).

Fig 3. Expression stability ranking of the candidate genes.

Fig 3

Rankings were calculated by (A,B) BestKeeper, (C,D) geNorm and (E) NormFinder for two C. quinoa accessions: (A,C) Titicaca and (B,D) CHEN-109. Stability values, SD and M values are shown for every gene. The most stable genes are shown on the right side (green arrow) and the least stable genes on the left (red arrow).

Fig 4. Pairwise variation analysis of the candidate genes.

Fig 4

The analysis was performed by geNorm for determination of the appropriate number of reference genes. Below 0.15 (default cut-off value) all gene pairs were considered stable and the addition of a third gene for normalization is not required. Vn is the pairwise variation of a given number of reference genes and Vn+1 is the pairwise variation produced when an extra reference gene is added to the analysis.

3.4 Validation of selected reference genes for normalization of diurnal expression data

We performed a further validation of the candidate genes due to their diurnal expression patterns (Fig 2) and their dissimilarity in the rankings obtained from the algorithms (Fig 3). We used the diurnally regulated genes CqBBX19 and CqBTC1 that share sequence homology with BvBBX19 and BvBTC1 respectively. These are major flowering time regulators of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) [20] and because both species belong to the same plant family, it is tempting to speculate that CqBBX19 and CqBTC1 have a similar function in quinoa. We normalized the expression data of CqBBX19 (Fig 5) and CqBTC1 (Fig 6) against each of the candidate reference genes. Furthermore, we carried out the normalization of both target genes with a constant Cq value of 20, to identify the expected expression patterns (simulation). Then, we looked for critical differences between the simulation and the obtained expression profiles of the target genes (e.g. number and position of expression peaks) and statistically assessed the significance of these differences.

Fig 5. Validation of reference genes using the target gene CqBBX19.

Fig 5

Relative CqBBX19 expression normalized against each candidate gene, the combination of the two best genes for normalization of Titicaca determined by BestKeeper (IDH-A + PTB) and a constant Cq value of 20 (Simulation). The bar at the top indicates light (empty box) and dark (filled box) phases. Error bars represent the SEM of three biological replicates.

Fig 6. Validation of reference genes using the target gene CqBTC1.

Fig 6

Relative CqBTC1 expression normalized against each candidate gene, the combination of the two best genes for normalization of Titicaca determined by BestKeeper (IDH-A + PTB) and a constant Cq value of 20 (Simulation). The bar at the top indicates light (empty box) and dark (filled box) phases. Error bars represent the SEM of three biological replicates.

As an outcome, normalizing CqBBX19 expression data against GAPDH, IDH-B, UBQ, TUB, ACT and RAN-3 resulted in expression patterns that clearly differed from the simulation in number, shape and position of the expression peaks (Fig 5), which suggests that these genes are unsuitable references and may be discarded. For instance, expression patterns obtained for CHEN-109 by normalization against UBQ and ACT depicted a peak at ZT-4, which is absent in the simulated expression pattern (one-way ANOVA; α = 0.05) and constitutes a great distortion from the expected pattern predicted by the simulation. On the other hand, the combination of the two best genes for normalization in Titicaca determined by BestKeeper (IDH-A + PTB) exhibited analogous diurnal expression patterns to the simulation (one-way ANOVA; α = 0.05). Similar observations can be made in the case of CqBTC1, where for instance, normalization against IDH-B or UBQ resulted in a peak at ZT-4 (one-way ANOVA; α = 0.05). This unique peak is not only absent in the simulation, but also in the expression profiles obtained by normalization against other reference genes (Fig 6).

We concluded that IDH-A and PTB geometric mean is the best reference to normalize diurnal expression studies in C. quinoa. The results of GeNorm indicated IDH-A and PTB as the best references and showed that the geometric mean of two reference genes is required for accurate normalization. This, taken together with the simulation outcome, in which expression results normalized against IDH-A and PTB did not differ from the simulation of candidate genes for both accessions, brought us to this conclusion. To provide more evidence of the suitability of the chosen reference, we studied the relative expression of the circadian gene CqGI in PI-587173 (S7 Fig). The simulation predicted a peak of expression at ZT-4, which is extended until ZT-8 and drops at ZT-12 (one-way ANOVA; α = 0.05). This predicted pattern was similar to the expression pattern of CqGI, when normalized against IDH-A and PTB geometric mean, showing the appropriate choice of the reference genes.

Our results show that using different reference genes for normalization, including those top ranked by stability, causes significant differences among the diurnal expression patterns of CqBBX19, CqBTC1 and CqGI under short day conditions. We were able to find a suitable reference for the normalization of our diurnal expression data by adding a simulation analysis to the data derived from commonly used software packages, avoiding selection of reference genes that produce false transcriptional profiles.

4. Discussion

RT-qPCR is a powerful tool to study gene expression, which allows the measurement of small amounts of nucleic acids in a wide range of samples from numerous sources. Nevertheless, the accuracy of RT-qPCR results strongly depends on accurate transcript normalization, which is very frequently overlooked during the data assessment. Moreover, misled interpretations guided by inaccurate results have been reported by using a single reference with no evidence that it is stably expressed across all conditions [6]. Furthermore, finding a gene that is stably expressed through a 24 h cycle represents a challenge, because transcript abundance of thousands of genes interplay during the day and conventionally used reference genes may show cyclic expression patterns [16]. In this study, we aimed to select suitable reference genes for diurnal expression studies to normalize expression data from two different quinoa accessions. We selected eight candidate reference genes (ACT, GAPDH, RAN-3, IDH-A, IDH-B, PTB, UBQ, TUB) based on C. quinoa transcriptome data [17] and literature survey [16, 23, 24] and tested them for stability during the course of a day. By adding a simulation analysis to the data obtained from conventional software packages (geNorm, NormFinder and BestKeeper), we determined that a combination of IDH-A and PTB was the most suitable reference to normalize our diurnal expression data. To date, this is the first report of a systematic analysis of reference genes for normalization of gene expression data in diurnal studies in C. quinoa.

Housekeeping genes are typically used as reference genes because their transcript levels are assumed stable during the execution of basic cellular functions. Nevertheless, the circadian regulatory pathways involve complex and intricate processes [14, 29], in which a housekeeping gene can undergo circadian regulation during the execution of its housekeeping function or the execution of a different function coupled to a circadian pathway (e.g. light induced GAPDH response in corn seedlings [30] and TUB carbon-induced diurnal response in Arabidopsis rosettes [31]). Furthermore, the complexity of the circadian pathways is reflected in the total number of diurnally expressed genes in plants, which varies widely from species to species. For instance, the percentage of rhythmic genes in transcriptome datasets of Arabidopsis rosettes and rice seedlings is 37.1% (14,019) and 33.2% (24,957), respectively [32]. In addition, the number of diurnally expressed genes highly depends on the tissue and developmental stage [32, 33]. Therefore, it is expected that conventionally used reference genes depict cyclic regulation, as it has been already illustrated for rice plants subjected to circadian cycles of different temperature and day length conditions [16]. Additionally, the observed differences in the expression profiles between Titicaca and CHEN-109 may be due to the origin-related photoperiod sensitivity of the accessions [28]. Similar intra-species variations, where a gene which is stable in one experiment is unstable in another one, has been observed in peach [3], rice [13] and petunia [34]. Ultimately, the described differences between accessions together with the observed diurnal pattern of the expression profiles enhance the need for a rigorous expression stability analysis. Moreover, when the validation of the reference genes is well performed, the use of suitable reference genes reduces experimentally induced or inherent technical variations [6]. In this sense, primer selection is a relevant point to consider, since several parameters concerning primer development can affect the RT-qPCR efficiency [21]. In our study, primer specificity was carefully assessed. Additionally, the RNA quality controls declined the possibility of samples containing PCR inhibitors. The selection of multiple-intron spanning primers is preferred, because it can prevent amplification of gDNA. In our case, this was not possible for every candidate gene due to other considered primer development criteria. However, we eliminated the possibility of gDNA amplification by performing a test PCR with our DNase treated RNA samples prior to cDNA synthesis. We only considered samples for which no amplification was detected using RNA as template, which would indicate absence of gDNA contamination.

From the analysis of the stability of the candidate reference genes, we obtained contrasting results using geNorm, NormFinder and BestKeeper. The variations we observed in the rankings across all the algorithms are explicable as they use different statistical approaches. Ranking the reference genes by pairwise comparison approaches (geNorm and BestKeeper) is problematic, since some genes may have similar but not constant expression profiles and will be ranked as the most stable reference genes irrespective of their expression stability [8]. The model-based algorithm NormFinder intuitively adds two sources of variation (intra and intergroup). When two different groups depict different expression profiles for the same candidate, the intergroup variation may mask the intragroup variation. Consequently, a suitable reference gene could be poorly ranked despite of presenting a low variation within groups. In this study, for instance, the expression profile of IDH-A was different for CHEN-109 and Titicaca and occupied the position six in the ranking despite of its low variation within accessions. Several studies have identified negligible to major differences in the stability rankings of the same gene. RefFinder and RankAgreeg are commonly used tools to configure a standard ranking for reference genes [3, 5, 11]. Here, we introduced a novel and straightforward method to elucidate the ambiguous results of the commonly used software packages in order to find suitable reference genes for normalization of diurnal expression data. The approach is based on the normalization of the target genes expression data against a constant Cq value of 20, which simulates the “ideal” reference gene with constant expression levels unaffected by experimental factors [21]. A comparison between the simulated results and the normalized expressions against the different candidate reference genes could be used to identify distorted diurnal patterns such as shifted peaks. Thus, the simulation is particularly useful to disregard inefficient reference genes. This approach completes the stability-based selection of reference genes based on geNorm, NormFinder and BestKeeper. The ideal reference gene follows these principles: the expression level is similar to that of the target gene, gene is expressed to a certain degree and its expression is not affected by any experimental conditions [3537]. Thus, replacing the Cq values of the reference gene by a constant Cq value, mimics the ideal reference gene expression. Changing the selected constant Cq value for the simulation considering these principles will not affect the simulation pattern since the expression is reported as relative values (S8 Fig). It is appropriate to mention that the simulation-based approach works under the assumption that identical amount of cDNA was added to each qPCR reaction. Thus, the method relies on accurate measurement of the input to the RT-qPCR reaction. Although equal concentration of RNA for all the samples was considered for cDNA synthesis, DNase treatment and reverse transcription may generate tube-to-tube differences in the final cDNA yield. We relied on Nanodrop measurements of RNA before performing reverse transcription and fulfilled the MIQE guidelines (S3 Table) [21]. Nevertheless, a fluorescent-based method to measure RNA concentration and, better yet, cDNA concentration, is advisable for future use of the simulation-based approach [38].

In the current study, commonly used reference genes were considered unstable because they resulted in diurnal expression patterns of the target genes, which differed from the simulated pattern. Moreover, reference genes selected based on quinoa transcriptome data18 showed unstable expression pattern in our dataset, which emphasizes the fact that they should be further validated for different environmental conditions. GAPDH, ACT, UBQ, RAN-3 and TUB have been already shown to be unsuitable as reference genes under certain experimental conditions [2, 4, 16]. The lack of stability of some of the widely used reference genes could not be detected by the algorithms in diurnal studies in rice [16]. Moreover, the use of inadequate reference genes could result in the representation of a gene as diurnally regulated, even when the gene does not depict a diurnal expression pattern in reality. To illustrate this, we took IDH-A expression data and treated it as target gene. We selected IDH-A because it depicts a stable expression profile (Fig 7A) and we do not expect it to be diurnally regulated. Then we used the three least stable reference genes (BestKeeper) and their geometric mean to normalize IDH-A expression data. As a result, the stably expressed IDH-A acquired a diurnal fashion for accessions Titicaca and CHEN-109 (Fig 7B and 7C), showing that the use of unsuitable reference genes can misrepresent a non-diurnal gene as diurnally regulated. Furthermore, once an appropriate reference has been found, it is possible to show the cyclic behavior of the candidate reference genes by normalizing the data of all candidates against the geometric mean of IDH-A and PTB (S9 Fig). In this way, an evidence that IDH-A and PTB are not diurnally regulated is also provided.

Fig 7. Illustration of a non-diurnal gene misrepresented as diurnally regulated.

Fig 7

(A) Expression profile of IDH-A (best reference gene according to BestKeeper), which did not show cyclic expression; error bars represent standard error between biological replicates. Relative IDH-A expression normalized with each of the three least stable reference genes according to BestKeeper and their geometric mean for (B) Titicaca and (C) CHEN-109. Error bars represent the SEM between biological replicates. The bar at the top indicates light (empty box) and dark (filled box) phases.

Interestingly, ACT has been validated as a suitable reference for diurnal expression studies in Chenopodium ficifolium [39]. In our study, ACT showed to be the best reference according to NormFinder, but this result was not supported by geNorm nor NormFinder methods. Moreover, important differences were observed between the expected pattern of the target genes, given by the simulation, and the obtained pattern by normalization with ACT, showing that there is not a unique reference gene that can be used across species. Additionally, in the Chenopodium ficifolium study only geNorm was used to test stability and one single gene was selected as a reference. It has been shown that to obtain measures of expression levels accurately, normalization by multiple housekeeping genes instead of one is required [7]. The reason for this is that a normalization against a factor (as it is the geometric mean of two or more reference genes) can effectively remove possible outlying values and abundance differences between the different genes. CqIDH-A and CqPTB were suitable as reference genes and their geometric mean was appropriate to normalize the diurnal expression of CqBBX19, CqBTC1 and CqGI. IDH encodes for the isocitrate dehydrogenase enzyme, whereas the PTB gene product is the Polypyrimidine Tract Binding protein involved in pre-mRNA processing. An IDH ortholog in B. vulgaris, another member of the Amaranthaceae family, was validated as suitable reference gene in the expression analyses of two paralogs of the FLOWERING LOCUS T (FT) [24] and PBT was used as a reference gene in C. quinoa to normalize the expression of saponin biosynthesis genes after methyl jasmonate treatment [29]. In beet, BBX19 acts together with BTC1 in the circadian regulation of the flowering pathway [20]. Considering the close phylogenetic relationship between B. vulgaris and C. quinoa, CqBBX19 and CqBTC1 might similarly regulate the flowering time in quinoa through photoperiod pathway. CqBTC1 diurnal expression pattern is comparable to the one given by for biennial vernalized B. vulgaris plants, since both expressions share a morning peak of expression [25]. CqBBX19 circadian pattern of CHEN-109 is similar to the one obtained in sugar beet [20]. The CqBTC1 and CqBBX19 expression patterns in CHEN-109, which flowers later than Titicaca, suggest independent activity of these genes. On the other hand, the common expression pattern in Titicaca suggests a joint activity of CqBTC1 and CqBBX19: these two genes clearly share the expression pattern from ZT-4 to ZT-12. CqGI peaks at ZT-8 for PI-587173 accession and follows a circadian rhythm similar to the one found for A. thaliana [26] and sugar beet [25]. In A. thaliana, GI is a key regulator of photoperiodic flowering [26]. However, sugar beet and Arabidopsis are considered long-day species and our expression experiments were conducted under short-days; thus, further experiments considering long day accessions investigated under long-day conditions are required to elucidate the putative role of GI in flowering time regulation of quinoa.

As the conclusion of this study, we were able to find a suitable reference gene combination, CqIDH-A and CqPTB, for the normalization of our diurnal expression data. Our results showed that using different reference genes for normalization, including those top ranked by stability, causes significant differences among the diurnal expression patterns of CqBBX19 and CqBTC1 for two different accessions of C. quinoa under short day conditions. This reinforces the fact that a more meticulous validation of reference genes is required for diurnal studies. Thus, we recommend the use of the presented comparison-based approach along with the use of the algorithms. The use of the comparison-based approach is recommended to disregard reference genes that greatly distort the expected expression pattern. In the future, the stable reference genes obtained in this study will significantly facilitate diurnal expression studies in quinoa by improving the accuracy of RT-qPCR data normalization.

Supporting information

S1 Table. A260/A280 and A260/A230 ratios of RNA isolated from diurnal leaf samples of the Titicaca accession.

(PDF)

S2 Table. Reference gene candidates obtained from cross validation of literature survey and C. quinoa shoot and root transcriptome data [17].

Selected genes were stably expressed at least in two out of four stress conditions in soil- and hydroponic-grown plants.

(PDF)

S3 Table. Minimum Information for Publication of Quantitative Real-Time PCR Experiments (MIQE): Checklist.

(PDF)

S1 Fig. RNA and cDNA quality control by electrophoresis.

(A) 1.5% agarose gel of RNA isolated from leaf samples of the Titicaca accession; lanes 1 to 3: ZT-0, lanes 4 to 6: ZT-4, lanes 7 to 9: ZT-8, lanes 10 to 1, lanes 13 to 15: 2: ZT-12, lanes 13 to 15: ZT-16, lanes 16 to 18: ZT-20, lanes 19 to 21: ZT-24. Putative bands for 28S and 18S rRNA are indicated by arrows. Agarose gel was run for 40 min at 100 V (cropped gel). (B) 2.0% agarose gel of PCR products of cDNA synthesized from RNA leaf samples of Titicaca accession; lanes 1 to 3: ZT-0, lanes 4 to 6: ZT-4, lanes 7 to 9: ZT-8, lanes 10 to 1, lanes 13 to 15: 2: ZT-12, lanes 13 to 15: ZT-16, lanes 16 to 18: ZT-20, lanes 19 to 21: ZT-24. M: 50 bp ladder, PC: positive control, NC: water. Agarose gel was run for 30 min at 100 V (cropped gel).

(TIF)

S2 Fig. Standard curves of the selected candidate and target genes.

Dilution factors 1:40 (2x), 1:20, 1:10 and 3:20 were used.

(TIF)

S3 Fig. Amplification of PCR products of expected sizes for each of the candidate genes.

Lane 1: ACT, lane 2: GAPDH, lane 3: IDH-B, lane 4: IDH-A, lane 5: PTB, lane 6: TUB, lane 7: UBQ, lane 8: RAN-3, NC: water, M: 50 bp ladder. 2.0% agarose gel was run for 40 min at 100 V.

(TIF)

S4 Fig. Melting curves of the candidate genes.

The curves were obtained from three technical replicates of three biological replicates (21 diurnal/circadian samples) for (A) CHEN-109 and (B) Titicaca.

(TIF)

S5 Fig. Verification of the primer combinations specificity by Sanger sequencing.

Sequencing results of (A) ACT, IDH-A, IDH-B (B) PTB, UBQ, TUB and RAN-3. Sequences correspond to Titicaca accession aligned to the reference sequence (accession PI 614886) (Jarvis et al., 2017). Primers are annotated and coverage is shown (captions on the right side). Fw = sequenced with the forward primer, Rv = sequenced with the reverse primer.

(TIF)

S6 Fig. Reference gene candidates’ intergroup variation between Titicaca and CHEN-109.

Variation was determined by NormFinder. Error bars represent the intragroup variation.

(TIF)

S7 Fig. Diurnal relative expression of GIGANTEA (CqGI).

Relative CqGI expression normalized against each candidate gene, the combination of the two best genes for normalization of Titicaca determined by BestKeeper (IDH-A + PTB) and a constant Cq value of 20 (Simulation) are shown. Expression corresponds to the accession PI-587173. The bar at the top indicates light (empty box) and dark (filled box) phases. Error bars represent the SEM of three biological replicates.

(TIF)

S8 Fig. Simulated expression of the target genes with different Cq values.

Target genes expression was normalized against a constant Cq value of (A) 16 (B) 18 (C) 22 (D) 24.

(TIF)

S9 Fig. Diurnal relative expression of ACT, IDH-A, IDH-B, PTB, UBQ, TUB, GAPDH and RAN-3.

Relative expression normalized against IDH-A and PTB geometric mean. The bar at the top indicates light (empty box) and dark (filled box) phases. Error bars represent the SEM of three biological replicates.

(TIF)

S1 Raw images

Full-length gels corresponding to cropped gels in (A) S1A Fig and (B) S1B Fig. Lanes labeled with an “X” in (B) correspond to different primer combinations tests for cDNA amplification by standard PCR. M: 50 bp ladder.

(TIF)

Acknowledgments

We thank Monika Bruisch for her support for conducting and sampling the climate chamber experiment. Sequence analyses were carried out by the Institute for Clinical Molecular Biology (IKMB, Kiel University). We thank Prof. Mark Tester (King Abdullah University of Science and Technology) for providing the seeds used in our experiment.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This study was partially funded by the Competitive Research Grant of the King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, Saudi Arabia awarded to CJ (Grant number: OSR-2016-CRG5-2966-02). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. There was no additional external funding received for this study. The rest of the costs were covered internally by the institute budget of the Plant Breeding Institute, Kiel University. We acknowledge the financial support by State of Schleswig-Holstein, Germany within the funding program “Open Access Publikationsfonds”.

References

  • 1.Amorim LLB, Ferreira-Neto JRC, Bezerra-Neto JP, Pandolfi V, de Araújo FT, da Silva Matos MK, et al. Cowpea and abiotic stresses: identification of reference genes for transcriptional profiling by qPCR. Plant Methods. 2018;14(1):88. 10.1186/s13007-018-0354-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Chen H, Hu B, Zhao L, Shi D, She Z, Huang X, et al. Differential Expression Analysis of Reference Genes in Pineapple (Ananas comosus L.) during Reproductive Development and Response to Abiotic Stress, Hormonal Stimuli. Tropical Plant Biol. 2019:1–11. 10.1007/s12042-019-09218-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Klumb EK, Rickes LN, Braga EJB, Bianchi VJ. Evaluation of stability and validation of reference genes for real time PCR expression studies in leaves and roots of Prunus spp. rootstocks under flooding. Sci Hort. 2019;247:310–9. 10.1016/j.scienta.2018.12.036 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Knopkiewicz M, Wojtaszek P. Validation of reference genes for gene expression analysis using quantitative polymerase chain reaction in pea lines (Pisum sativum) with different lodging susceptibility. Ann Appl Biol. 2019;174(1):86–91. 10.1111/aab.12475 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Yan H, Zhang Y, Xiong Y, Chen Q, Liang H, Niu M, et al. Selection and Validation of Novel RT-qPCR Reference Genes under Hormonal Stimuli and in Different Tissues of Santalum album. Sci Rep,. 2018;8(1):17511. 10.1038/s41598-018-35883-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Bustin S, Nolan T. Talking the talk, but not walking the walk: RT‐qPCR as a paradigm for the lack of reproducibility in molecular research. Eur J Clin Invest. 2017;47(10):756–74. 10.1111/eci.12801 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Vandesompele J, De Preter K, Pattyn F, Poppe B, Van Roy N, De Paepe A, et al. Accurate normalization of real-time quantitative RT-PCR data by geometric averaging of multiple internal control genes. Genome Biol. 2002;3(7):research0034.1. 10.1186/gb-2002-3-7-research0034 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Andersen CL, Jensen JL, Ørntoft TF. 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(15):5245–50. 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-04-0496 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Pfaffl MW, Tichopad A, Prgomet C, Neuvians TP. Determination of stable housekeeping genes, differentially regulated target genes and sample integrity: BestKeeper–Excel-based tool using pair-wise correlations. Biotechnology Lett. 2004;26(6):509–15. 10.1023/b:bile.0000019559.84305.47 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Sgamma T, Pape J, Massiah A, Jackson S. Selection of reference genes for diurnal and developmental time-course real-time PCR expression analyses in lettuce. Plant Methods. 2016;12(1):21. 10.1186/s13007-016-0121-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Zhang L, Zhang Q, Jiang Y, Li Y, Zhang H, Li R. Reference genes identification for normalization of qPCR under multiple stresses in Hordeum brevisubulatum. Plant Methods. 2018;14(1):110. 10.1186/s13007-018-0379-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Lin Y, Zhang C, Lan H, Gao S, Liu H, Liu J, et al. Validation of potential reference genes for qPCR in maize across abiotic stresses, hormone treatments, and tissue types. PLoS One. 2014;9(5):e95445. 10.1371/journal.pone.0095445 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Kim B-R, Nam H-Y, Kim S-U, Kim S-I, Chang Y-J. Normalization of reverse transcription quantitative-PCR with housekeeping genes in rice. Biotechnol Lett. 2003;25(21):1869–72. 10.1023/a:1026298032009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Dakhiya Y, Hussien D, Fridman E, Kiflawi M, Green RM. Correlations between circadian rhythms and growth in challenging environments. Plant Physiol. 2017:pp. 00057.2017. 10.1104/pp.17.00057 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Kim J, Kim H-S, Choi S-H, Jang J-Y, Jeong M-J, Lee S. The importance of the circadian clock in regulating plant metabolism. Int J Mol Sci. 2017;18(12):2680. 10.3390/ijms18122680 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Jain N, Vergish S, Khurana JP. Validation of house-keeping genes for normalization of gene expression data during diurnal/circadian studies in rice by RT-qPCR. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):3203. 10.1038/s41598-018-21374-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Jarvis DE, Ho YS, Lightfoot DJ, Schmöckel SM, Li B, Borm TJ, et al. The genome of Chenopodium quinoa. Nature. 2017;542(7641):307. 10.1038/nature21370 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Abugoch LE, Romero N, Tapia CA, Silva J, Rivera M. Study of some physicochemical and functional properties of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd) protein isolates. J Agric Food Chem. 2008;56(12):4745–50. 10.1021/jf703689u [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Bazile D, Jacobsen S-E, Verniau A. The global expansion of quinoa: trends and limits. Front Plant Sci. 2016;7:622. 10.3389/fpls.2016.00622 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Dally N, Eckel M, Batschauer A, Höft N, Jung C. Two CONSTANS-LIKE genes jointly control flowering time in beet. Scientific reports. 2018;8(1):1–10. 10.1038/s41598-017-17765-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Bustin SA, Benes V, Garson JA, Hellemans J, Huggett J, Kubista M, et al. The MIQE guidelines: minimum information for publication of quantitative real-time PCR experiments. Clin Chem. 2009;55(4):611–22. 10.1373/clinchem.2008.112797 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Sosa‐Zuniga V, Brito V, Fuentes F, Steinfort U. Phenological growth stages of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) based on the BBCH scale. Ann Appl Biol. 2017;171(1):117–24. 10.1111/aab.12358 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Fiallos-Jurado J, Pollier J, Moses T, Arendt P, Barriga-Medina N, Morillo E, et al. Saponin determination, expression analysis and functional characterization of saponin biosynthetic genes in Chenopodium quinoa leaves. Plant Science. 2016;250:188–97. 10.1016/j.plantsci.2016.05.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Pin PA, Benlloch R, Bonnet D, Wremerth-Weich E, Kraft T, Gielen JJ, et al. An antagonistic pair of FT homologs mediates the control of flowering time in sugar beet. Science. 2010;330(6009):1397–400. 10.1126/science.1197004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Vogt SH, Weyens G, Lefèbvre M, Bork B, Schechert A, Müller AE. The FLC-like gene BvFL1 is not a major regulator of vernalization response in biennial beets. Front. Plant Sci. 2014;5:146. 10.3389/fpls.2014.00146 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.David KM, Armbruster U, Tama N, Putterill J. Arabidopsis GIGANTEA protein is post-transcriptionally regulated by light and dark. FEBS letters. 2006;580(5):1193–7. 10.1016/j.febslet.2006.01.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Schmittgen TD, Livak KJ. Analyzing real-time PCR data by the comparative CT method. Nat Protoc. 2008;3(6):1101. 10.1038/nprot.2008.73 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Jacobsen SE. The scope for adaptation of quinoa in Northern Latitudes of Europe. J Agron Crop Sci. 2017;203(6):603–13. 10.1111/jac.12228 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Nagel DH, Kay SA. Complexity in the wiring and regulation of plant circadian networks. Curr Biol 2012;22(16):R648–R57. 10.1016/j.cub.2012.07.025 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Lillo C. Light‐induced circadian rhythms in NADP+‐glyceraldehyde‐3‐phosphate dehydrogenase mRNA in corn seedlings. Biol Rhythm Res. 1993;24(1):65–71. 10.1080/09291019309360196 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Usadel B, Bläsing OE, Gibon Y, Retzlaff K, Höhne M, Günther M, et al. Global transcript levels respond to small changes of the carbon status during progressive exhaustion of carbohydrates in Arabidopsis rosettes. Plant Physiol. 2008;146(4):1834–61. 10.1104/pp.107.115592 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Ferrari C, Proost S, Janowski M, Becker J, Nikoloski Z, Bhattacharya D, et al. Kingdom-wide comparison reveals the evolution of diurnal gene expression in Archaeplastida. Nat Commun. 2019;10(1):737. 10.1038/s41467-019-08703-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Mangelsen E, Wanke D, Kilian J, Sundberg E, Harter K, Jansson C. Significance of Light, Sugar, and Amino Acid Supply for Diurnal Gene Regulation in Developing Barley Caryopses. Plant Physiol. 2010;153(1):14–33. 10.1104/pp.110.154856 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Mallona I, Lischewski S, Weiss J, Hause B, Egea-Cortines M. Validation of reference genes for quantitative real-time PCR during leaf and flower development in Petunia hybrida. BMC Plant Biol. 2010;10(1):4. 10.1186/1471-2229-10-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Suzuki T, Higgins PJ, Crawford DR. Control selection for RNA quantitation. Biotechniques. 2000;29(2):332–7. 10.2144/00292rv02 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Thellin O, Zorzi W, Lakaye B, De Borman B, Coumans B, Hennen G, et al. Housekeeping genes as internal standards: use and limits. J. Biotechnol. 1999;75(2–3):291–5. 10.1016/s0168-1656(99)00163-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Udvardi MK, Czechowski T, Scheible W-R. Eleven golden rules of quantitative RT-PCR. The Plant Cell. 2008;20(7):1736–7. 10.1105/tpc.108.061143 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Libus J, Štorchová H. Quantification of cDNA generated by reverse transcription of total RNA provides a simple alternative tool for quantitative RT-PCR normalization. BioTechniques. 2006;41(2):156–64. 10.2144/000112232 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Štorchová H, Hubáčková H, Abeyawardana OA, Walterová J, Vondráková Z, Eliášová K, et al. Chenopodium ficifolium flowers under long days without upregulation of FLOWERING LOCUS T (FT) homologs. Planta. 2019;250(6):2111–25. 10.1007/s00425-019-03285-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Christian Schönbach

2 Oct 2020

PONE-D-20-14035

Validation of suitable genes for normalization of diurnal gene expression studies in Chenopodium quinoa

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Nazgol Emrani,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Your manusript has been seen by three reviewers. All three identified issues with design of the study and to various extent with methods and their description and support of conclusions by the data. Since the publications criteria #3 and #4 are not met your are required address this issues and ammend experiments. Of particular concern is the timing of taking samples and comparisions made, genes slected to be included in the study, and confusing, inconcise description of Figures amd insufficient support/arguments for dismissing reference genes.

Please submit your revised manuscript by December 1, 2020. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Christian Schönbach, Dr.rer.nat.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. PLOS ONE now requires that authors provide the original uncropped and unadjusted images underlying all blot or gel results reported in a submission’s figures or Supporting Information files. This policy and the journal’s other requirements for blot/gel reporting and figure preparation are described in detail at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-preparing-figures-from-image-files. When you submit your revised manuscript, please ensure that your figures adhere fully to these guidelines and provide the original underlying images for all blot or gel data reported in your submission. See the following link for instructions on providing the original image data: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-original-images-for-blots-and-gels.

In your cover letter, please note whether your blot/gel image data are in Supporting Information or posted at a public data repository, provide the repository URL if relevant, and provide specific details as to which raw blot/gel images, if any, are not available. Email us at plosone@plos.org if you have any questions.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript entitled: “Validation of suitable genes for normalization of diurnal gene expression studies in Chenopodium quinoa” use three statistical algorithms (BestKeeper, geNorm and NormFinder) to validate potential candidate genes for normalization of diurnal expression studies in C. quinoa.

Mayor concerns:

1) In my opinion and after going thoroughly to the manuscript I do not find any biological question that the authors want to address. Even when the tittle of the manuscript is related to diurnal gene expression no conclusions, no discussion are given related to any diurnal expression study.

2) Rather than compared two different ecotypes, even when they have different time period of flowering they should do some comparison between day and night (circadian clock).

3) The authors choose, in their word three genes that represent the Amaranthaceae family, my concern is what have to do the rice there? Neither an explanation nor argument in discussion.

4) Also they analyze and made conclusion based on few publications to conclude that it is a problem with normalization. So my question is what happens with many publications related to transcriptome analysis that used qPCR for gene expression?

5) In my opinion the authors of this manuscript performed a nice statistical experiments and interpretation of data for their genes that it is a plus, however it will be better to go to a Journal of plant methods. Again, no biological address is discuss or presented.

Minor concern:

1) For this reviewer it was impossible to find the Danish accession, as the authors must be aware “Titicaca” is a name of a lake between Peru and Bolivia where a lot of quinoa is grown. May be the accession also is from Peru. In these days is very important to have very clear from where the accession is coming.

2) The authors also write Danish accession or Titicaca accession, it must be one way.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript “Validation of suitable genes for normalization of diurnal gene expression studies in Chenopodium quinoa” represents a very useful study aimed to find the most valid reference gene(s) which could be used in the study of circadian rhythmic gene expression in the important crop quinoa. The selection of appropriate reference gene(s) with a maxiumum expression stability is a crucial prerequisite for a successful study of gene expression. The authors used several programs in standard use such as NormFinder and GeNorm, utilized in silico transcriptomic resources as well as careful experimental validations. The topic belongs to the range of articles published in PLoS one. The manuscript is well written and easy to follow.

I have only a few comments.

1. Please, can you describe the simulation of the BBX expression in more detail? I could not find, how it was performed.

2. It is useful to design the primers “across” introns, to exclude amplification of the traces of gDNA. The quinoa genome is available, it would be useful to add this information.

3. Not only the choice of the gene, but also the selection of primers, are important. Can you briefly discuss the possible influence of primer choice (e.g. PCR efficiency) on the results?

4. The reference gene to normalize circadian geen expression experiment in the close relative of quinoa (C. ficifolium) has been recently published in Planta (250; 2019). Can you please compare your results with those? Actin11 was found as the best single reference also in your study. How big is the advantage to use two references compared to a single reference gene?

Reviewer #3: 1. Harvesting time points have been falsely mentioned in Line 79 as ‘every two hours’ as against every four hours that was actually done.

2. Line 206 is erroneous. Needs to be rectified.

3. The authors have used just one target gene, which is insufficient, and that too has not been introduced properly in terms of its cyclic expression pattern. The expected time of its peak has not been mentioned when the gene was first introduced in the text, so that the downstream analysis could be better understood. In an ideal study, four to five well known diurnal genes should have been taken, the peaks of which would be distributed to different parts of the day, most importantly dawn as well as dusk. Also, it is good to include genes with sharp (such as LHY, CCA1 having high expression) as well as shallow peaks (such as TOC1 having lower expression) so that the detrimental effect of the reference genes could be best understood.

4. The authors have used a new concept of simulation in RT-qPCR analysis that uses an arbitrary Cp value of 20 across all samples, in place of a reference gene, for normalizing the target genes. This concept somehow does not serve the very purpose of a reference gene whose main job is to minimize sample to sample variations arising in a sample set, due to human errors in pipetting and minor differences in RNA/ cDNA qualities and quantities. The concept needs to be supported by citing examples from any published literature if it exists.

5. The authors have taken just seven samples for sensitive diurnal studies and that too only for one day. Normally, a bi-hourly sampling should be pursued for at least two consecutive days, which should give similar expression pattern across both days. Since they have made a 4-hourly sampling for only one day, it becomes all the more important to check for the sample quality by testing expression of known diurnal genes like LHY, TOC, CCA1, etc. This will also eliminate the need to use simulation studies, as done by the authors.

6. Fig. 6 is not clear. In the figure legend it is mentioned that the expression of IDH-A with respect to other reference genes is depicted but the graphs are confusing to interpret.

7. Fig. 5 has been inadequately explained and vague interpretations have been drawn which makes it difficult to understand what the authors are trying to point out. How did the authors reach the conclusion that IDH-A and PTB genes are the best reference genes, without proving that they do not cycle, themselves.

8. A reference gene can be deemed unfit for diurnal experiments if it itself shows cycling behaviour or if its expression is very high or low, all of which can disturb the peaks of the target genes. The authors must clearly state the reason for rejecting some reference genes, while accepting others, by normalizing the data of all the reference genes chosen against the geometric mean of the best two or three reference genes. This will bring out the cyclic expression profile of the reference genes, if present. Doing this will certainly give more weightage to the claims made by the authors, as to why some genes can be used but the others can not to normalize diurnal datasets in Quinoa.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Mar 11;16(3):e0233821. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233821.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


10 Dec 2020

Dear reviewers:

We thank you for their valuable comments, which will contribute to the improvement of the manuscript. We have carefully revised the manuscript accordingly. In the following, we provide a point-by-point response to the reviewer’s comments. To clarify the points raised by the reviewers, we conducted more experiments and provided four additional figures (Figures 6, S7, S8 and S9). The changes to the manuscript are highlighted with track changes in the main text.

Please, note that all line numbers indicated in responses to reviewers’ comments are given according to the line numbers in the marked-up version of the manuscript including the track changes. Moreover, all the citations are presented according to the journal requirements in the main version of the manuscript (without track-changes).

We hope that we could elucidate all the points raised by the reviewers and that the manuscript can be accepted after this revision.

Kind regards,

Nazgol Emrani

Plant Breeding Institute

Christian-Albrechts-University of Kiel

Am Botanischen Garten 1-9

D-24118 Kiel, Germany

Tel.: +49-4318802016

Fax: +49-4318802566

Email: n.emrani@plantbreeding.uni-kiel.de

Reviewer #1: The manuscript entitled: “Validation of suitable genes for normalization of diurnal gene expression studies in Chenopodium quinoa” use three statistical algorithms (BestKeeper, geNorm and NormFinder) to validate potential candidate genes for normalization of diurnal expression studies in C. quinoa.

Mayor concerns:

1) In my opinion and after going thoroughly to the manuscript I do not find any biological question that the authors want to address. Even when the tittle of the manuscript is related to diurnal gene expression no conclusions, no discussion are given related to any diurnal expression study.

Answer:

The biological question is pronounced in the title “Validation of suitable genes for normalization” and covered in the introduction (lines 32 to 36). In order to clarify the concern of the reviewer lines 62 to 65 have been added/modified.

2) Rather than compared two different ecotypes, even when they have different time period of flowering they should do some comparison between day and night (circadian clock).

Answer:

The variation between day and night of our reference candidate genes can be already observed in Fig 2 and it is mentioned in lines 239 to 244.

Although the main aim of the paper is to find a suitable reference to normalize RT-qPCR data and not to discuss the role of our target genes in the quinoa flowering pathway, we have extended our discussion about this topic in lines 475 to 493 to address the reviewer’s concern.

3) The authors choose, in their word three genes that represent the Amaranthaceae family, my concern is what have to do the rice there? Neither an explanation nor argument in discussion.

Answer:

The citation of the rice paper (Jain et al, 2018) was an important part of our literature survey and that is the reason to be cited in line 123 together with the Amaranthacea references. We are now aware of the confusion generated by this citation and have removed it from lines 123 and 217.

The rice paper is already included in our discussion (line 345, 349, 367, 436, 438). This paper is important for us not because of the crop (rice) but because it presents similar results regarding the validation of reference genes for diurnal studies, showing that some of the commonly used reference genes might depict a diurnal pattern (line 436-438).

4) Also they analyze and made conclusion based on few publications to conclude that it is a problem with normalization. So my question is what happens with many publications related to transcriptome analysis that used qPCR for gene expression?

Answer:

To look for suitable reference genes for gene expression studies is a highly important task, which must be done before presenting any kind of RT-qPCR data. Unfortunately, many RT-qPCR studies still dismiss the seriousness of this step and ignore many publications (some of them cited in our paper), which refer to the importance of validating reference genes.

5) In my opinion the authors of this manuscript performed a nice statistical experiments and interpretation of data for their genes that it is a plus, however it will be better to go to a Journal of plant methods. Again, no biological address is discuss or presented.

Answer:

Several recent publications in Plos one address the question of finding accurate reference genes, considering its importance for reporting RT-qPCR data (Su et al., 2020; Ma et al., 2020).

To diminish the impression that our research is a “method” paper, we have modified lines 332-336, 397-399, 494-497. Moreover, although our paper’s aim is not to discuss the flowering pathway in quinoa, we have already given a first insight into this topic and provided data that can be used by the scientific community.

Minor concern:

1) For this reviewer it was impossible to find the Danish accession, as the authors must be aware “Titicaca” is a name of a lake between Peru and Bolivia where a lot of quinoa is grown. May be the accession also is from Peru. In these days is very important to have very clear from where the accession is coming.

Answer:

The reviewer may refer to https://www.tystofte.dk/en/varieties-status/national-list/, where it is possible to find that Puno, Titicaca and Vikinga are Danish varieties.

2) The authors also write Danish accession or Titicaca accession, it must be one way.

Answer:

Following the reviewer’s recommendation, we have changed the name “Danish accession” to “Titicaca” in the manuscript

References:

Jain N, Vergish S, Khurana JP. Validation of house-keeping genes for normalization of gene expression data during diurnal/circadian studies in rice by RT-qPCR. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):3203. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-21374-1.

Su, X., Lu, L., Li, Y., Zhen, C., Hu, G., Jiang, K., ... & Chen, X. (2020). Reference gene selection for quantitative real-time PCR (qRT-PCR) expression analysis in Galium aparine L. Plos one, 15(2), e0226668.

Ma, L., Wu, J., Qi, W., Coulter, J. A., Fang, Y., Li, X., ... & Sun, W. (2020). Screening and verification of reference genes for analysis of gene expression in winter rapeseed (Brassica rapa L.) under abiotic stress. PloS one, 15(9), e0236577.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript “Validation of suitable genes for normalization of diurnal gene expression studies in Chenopodium quinoa” represents a very useful study aimed to find the most valid reference gene(s) which could be used in the study of circadian rhythmic gene expression in the important crop quinoa. The selection of appropriate reference gene(s) with a maxiumum expression stability is a crucial prerequisite for a successful study of gene expression. The authors used several programs in standard use such as NormFinder and GeNorm, utilized in silico transcriptomic resources as well as careful experimental validations. The topic belongs to the range of articles published in PLoS one. The manuscript is well written and easy to follow.

I have only a few comments.

1. Please, can you describe the simulation of the BBX expression in more detail? I could not find, how it was performed.

Answer:

We have added lines 195 to 197 to clarify this point. The simulation procedure now is described from line 190 to 205.

2. It is useful to design the primers “across” introns, to exclude amplification of the traces of gDNA. The quinoa genome is available, it would be useful to add this information.

Answer:

We considered this point during our primer design and have modified the text accordingly (lines 137-139). Moreover, we marked in Table 1 the pair of primers which are designed across introns.

3. Not only the choice of the gene, but also the selection of primers, are important. Can you briefly discuss the possible influence of primer choice (e.g. PCR efficiency) on the results?

Answer:

We added lines 374 to 383 to discuss this point.

4. The reference gene to normalize circadian geen expression experiment in the close relative of quinoa (C. ficifolium) has been recently published in Planta (250; 2019). Can you please compare your results with those? Actin11 was found as the best single reference also in your study. How big is the advantage to use two references compared to a single reference gene?

Answer:

The reviewer’s concern is addressed in the added lines 458-468.

Reviewer #3:

1. Harvesting time points have been falsely mentioned in Line 79 as ‘every two hours’ as against every four hours that was actually done.

Answer:

The harvesting time points were indeed ‘every two hours’; nevertheless, we considered only the ZT points mentioned in line 99 due to the time constraints and the aim of our experiment. To avoid confusion, we added line 97-98.

2. Line 206 is erroneous. Needs to be rectified.

Answer: the line has been corrected (line 230-231).

3. The authors have used just one target gene, which is insufficient, and that too has not been introduced properly in terms of its cyclic expression pattern. The expected time of its peak has not been mentioned when the gene was first introduced in the text, so that the downstream analysis could be better understood. In an ideal study, four to five well known diurnal genes should have been taken, the peaks of which would be distributed to different parts of the day, most importantly dawn as well as dusk. Also, it is good to include genes with sharp (such as LHY, CCA1 having high expression) as well as shallow peaks (such as TOC1 having lower expression) so that the detrimental effect of the reference genes could be best understood.

Answer:

We have added a complete analysis of a new target gene BOLTING TIME CONTROL 1 (BTC1) for two accessions and an extra analysis of GIGANTEA (GI) for a third accession. Thus, fulfilling the requirements of the reviewer considering a gene that is expected to peak at dawn (with a shallow peak; BBX19), a gene that peaks at dusk (BTC1) and a gene with a sharp peak (GI). The expected times of the peaks have been added to lines 207 to 209. The text has been modified in all parts where it was affected by the addition of the new target genes.

4. The authors have used a new concept of simulation in RT-qPCR analysis that uses an arbitrary Cp value of 20 across all samples, in place of a reference gene, for normalizing the target genes. This concept somehow does not serve the very purpose of a reference gene whose main job is to minimize sample to sample variations arising in a sample set, due to human errors in pipetting and minor differences in RNA/ cDNA qualities and quantities. The concept needs to be supported by citing examples from any published literature if it exists.

Answer:

The selected Cq value will not alter the outcome of the simulated pattern since the by 2^(-∆∆Cq) reports the expression as relative values; thus, the differential value ∆∆Cq will produce the same pattern as long as the reference value is constant among biological replicates and sampling points. To show that varying the selected Cq value for the simulation does not affect the simulation outcome, we have added S8 Fig. The concept can be supported by the definitions of the basic principles of a reference gene (added lines 408 to 414). As far as we know, no other paper reports a simulation as we have performed, being thus, part of the novelty of our paper.

5. The authors have taken just seven samples for sensitive diurnal studies and that too only for one day. Normally, a bi-hourly sampling should be pursued for at least two consecutive days, which should give similar expression pattern across both days. Since they have made a 4-hourly sampling for only one day, it becomes all the more important to check for the sample quality by testing expression of known diurnal genes like LHY, TOC, CCA1, etc. This will also eliminate the need to use simulation studies, as done by the authors.

Answer:

Taking the words of the reviewer, we expect that the addition of BTC1 and GI, as “known diurnal genes”, enhances the presented results. Nevertheless, we show the addition of these genes does not eliminate the need of simulation. Conversely, the addition of target genes supports the point that reference genes have to be carefully chosen, not relying exclusively on the widely used algorithms (Fig 6 and S7 Fig).

We agree with the reviewer that in the “ideal case”, samples should be taken in a course of a few days. Nevertheless, relevant publications related to our study, which show BBX19, BTC1 (Dally et al.,2006; Vogt et al., 2014) and GI diurnal expressions, have been performed during the course of a day. In the case of GI in four-hour intervals (David et al.,2006). Moreover, several papers, which make even stronger statements and conclusions from diurnal studies than those presented in our study, have been performed during the course of a day (Na et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020). Finally, we believe that the addition of an extra sampling day should not be indispensable because we present variation of a considerable number of genes (putative references and target genes) in three different accessions.

6. Fig. 6 is not clear. In the figure legend it is mentioned that the expression of IDH-A with respect to other reference genes is depicted but the graphs are confusing to interpret.

Answer:

Fig 6., called now Fig 7, has been modified for a better understanding. The aim of this figure is to show that using inadequate reference genes can result in representing a non-diurnal gene as diurnally regulated. For a better explanation lines 438-447 have been added/modified.

7. Fig. 5 has been inadequately explained and vague interpretations have been drawn which makes it difficult to understand what the authors are trying to point out. How did the authors reach the conclusion that IDH-A and PTB genes are the best reference genes, without proving that they do not cycle themselves.

Answer:

To reach this conclusion we used two complementing analyses:

The results of GeNorm, which indicate IDH-A and PTB as the best references and point that the geometric mean of two reference genes is required for accurate normalization.

Since the stability results among the three software were not the same, another way of evaluation is required. Here we used the simulation to discard unsuitable reference genes according to the parameters described in the method section from line 199 to 205.

To clarify how we reached the main conclusion we added/modified lines 285-287, 290-291, 305-310. Together with this, we modified the interpretations of Figure 5 and clarified why we discarded some genes in lines 293-294. We also added an example of how we discarded genes related to the new Fig 6, which depicts results for BTC1 (lines 301-304).

The three software analyses intend to prove that the candidates do not show a diurnal pattern themselves. Nevertheless, we have shown that the results of these software are not enough evidence of stable expression during the course of a day. As an evidence that the genes do not cycle themselves, we added S9 fig, which in fact, was created following the directions of the reviewer at point 8.

8. A reference gene can be deemed unfit for diurnal experiments if it itself shows cycling behaviour or if its expression is very high or low, all of which can disturb the peaks of the target genes. The authors must clearly state the reason for rejecting some reference genes, while accepting others, by normalizing the data of all the reference genes chosen against the geometric mean of the best two or three reference genes. This will bring out the cyclic expression profile of the reference genes, if present. Doing this will certainly give more weightage to the claims made by the authors, as to why some genes can be used but the others can not to normalize diurnal datasets in Quinoa.

Answer:

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion, which will certainly reinforce the presented results. We have added S9 fig and modified the text in lines 447 to 450.

References:

Dally, N., Eckel, M., Batschauer, A., Höft, N., & Jung, C. (2018). Two CONSTANS-LIKE genes jointly control flowering time in beet. Scientific reports, 8(1), 1-10.

David, K. M., Armbruster, U., Tama, N., & Putterill, J. (2006). Arabidopsis GIGANTEA protein is post-transcriptionally regulated by light and dark. FEBS letters, 580(5), 1193-1197.

Ng, J. W. X., Tan, Q. W., Ferrari, C., & Mutwil, M. (2020). Diurnal. plant. tools: comparative transcriptomic and co-expression analyses of diurnal gene expression of the Archaeplastida kingdom. Plant and Cell Physiology, 61(1), 212-220.

Vogt, S. H., Weyens, G., Lefèbvre, M., Bork, B., Schechert, A., & Müller, A. E. (2014). The FLC-like gene BvFL1 is not a major regulator of vernalization response in biennial beets. Frontiers in plant science, 5, 146.

Zhang, X., Fatima, M., Zhou, P., Ma, Q., & Ming, R. (2020). Analysis of MADS-box genes revealed modified flowering gene network and diurnal expression in pineapple. BMC genomics, 21(1), 1-16.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Christian Schönbach

14 Jan 2021

PONE-D-20-14035R1

Validation of suitable genes for normalization of diurnal gene expression studies in Chenopodium quinoa

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Emrani,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

The revised version addressed most of the the previous concerns and suggestion. Reviewer #2 still has reservations regarding the assumption of constant Cq value 20 across all samples in context potentially varying quantities (tube to tube differences) after DNAse treatment, reverse transcription (after Nanodrop) and the Nanodrop measurement itself. Although MIQUE guidelines state "...it is advisable to measure all samples with a single method only and to report this information" they also state "The preferred method for quantifying RNA uses fluorescent RNA-binding dyes (e.g., RiboGreen), which are best for detecting low target concentrations." This needs to be addressed in light of publication criterion 3.

Aside from the reviewer comments you are encouraged to use the MIQUE checklist (https://rdml.org/files/docs/MIQE_checklist.xls) and include it as supplement table.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 20, 2021. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Christian Schönbach, Dr.rer.nat.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I would like to thanks the authors for answer my concerns and clarify most of my points. However still I think that represent more a methodology rather than address a biological question. Based on that I will leave the decision to accept/reject the manuscript in the hands of the Editor.

Reviewer #2: The authors of the manuscript “Validation of suitable genes for normalization of diurnal gene expression studies in Chenopodium quinoa“ improved their article substantially in the course of revision and clarified most issues.

However, one of my concerns persists. It is the simulation method, when the authors took the constant Cp value 20 across all the samples. This approach would work supposing that exactly identical amount of cDNA was added to each qPCR reaction. The authors relied on Nanodrop measurements of RNAs before performing reversion transcription and DNAse treatment. However, DNAse treatment and reverse transcription may generate tube-to-tube differences in the final cDNA yield. Thus, I do not consider this simulation to be an appropriate tool to verify reference gene stability. Fluorescence-based estimation of cDNA amount shall be used instead to measure equality of input to RT PCR reaction. Please, consult the paper Libus et al., Biotechniques 2006.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Mar 11;16(3):e0233821. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233821.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


10 Feb 2021

Dear Editor,

Thank you for your e-mail enclosing the reviewer’s comments. We thank the reviewers for their valuable comments, which will contribute to the improvement of the manuscript.

We have carefully revised the manuscript accordingly. In the following, we provide a point-by-point response to the reviewer’s comments. To clarify the concern of reviewer 2 and as encouraged by the Editor, we modified the Discussion and provided one additional table (Table S3). The changes to the manuscript are highlighted with track changes in the main text.

Please, note that all line numbers indicated in responses to reviewers’ comments are given according to the line numbers in the marked-up version of the manuscript including the track changes. Moreover, all the citations are presented according to the journal requirements in the main version of the manuscript (without track-changes). All authors have received the reviews and been informed about the re-submission of the manuscript.

This study was partially funded by the Competitive Research Grant of the King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, Saudi Arabia awarded to CJ (Grant number: OSR-2016-CRG5-2966-02). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. There was no additional external funding received for this study. The rest of the costs were covered internally by the institute budget of the Plant Breeding Institute, Kiel University.

We hope that we could elucidate all the points raised by the reviewers and that the manuscript can be accepted after this revision.

Kind regards,

Nazgol Emrani

Plant Breeding Institute

Christian-Albrechts-University of Kiel

Am Botanischen Garten 1-9

D-24118 Kiel, Germany

Tel.: +49-4318802016

Fax: +49-4318802566

Email: n.emrani@plantbreeding.uni-kiel.de

Response to reviewers

Reviewer #1: I would like to thanks the authors for answer my concerns and clarify most of my points. However still I think that represent more a methodology rather than address a biological question. Based on that I will leave the decision to accept/reject the manuscript in the hands of the Editor.

Answer:

We thank the reviewer for spending the time to review the manuscript again. We feel like we have addressed this point in the last revision under Introduction lines 31 to 35 and 61 to 64.

Reviewer #2: The authors of the manuscript "Validation of suitable genes for normalization of diurnal gene expression studies in Chenopodium quinoa" improved their article substantially in the course of revision and clarified most issues.

However, one of my concerns persists. It is the simulation method, when the authors took the constant Cp value 20 across all the samples. This approach would work supposing that exactly identical amount of cDNA was added to each qPCR reaction. The authors relied on Nanodrop measurements of RNAs before performing reversion transcription and DNAse treatment. However, DNAse treatment and reverse transcription may generate tube-to-tube differences in the final cDNA yield. Thus, I do not consider this simulation to be an appropriate tool to verify reference gene stability. Fluorescence-based estimation of cDNA amount shall be used instead to measure equality of input to RT PCR reaction. Please, consult the paper Libus et al., Biotechniques 2006.

Answer:

We thank the reviewer for their comments. We agree that fluorescent methods may be better suited to quantify RNA or to estimate the amount of cDNA, especially when different amounts of RNA and/or contaminants can be expected, for instance because different tissues were used, or strong stresses were imposed on the plants. In this study, we focused on one tissue only (leaves) and plants were all at the same developmental stage. Moreover, the Nanodrop-spectra suggest that samples are similar in purity. Nevertheless, we have discussed the drawbacks in lines 396-404 and 469-471. We have also cited the mentioned reference as an advisable method for quantification of cDNA (line 404). The use of the simulation is intended to work together with the widely used methods to, mainly, disregard the reference genes that produce a highly distorted pattern from the “expected” one (already mentioned in line 389). We have followed the MIQE guidelines, which allows the use of Nanodrop (added S3 Table and line 596).

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers_10.02.20.docx

Decision Letter 2

Christian Schönbach

19 Feb 2021

Validation of suitable genes for normalization of diurnal gene expression studies in Chenopodium quinoa

PONE-D-20-14035R2

Dear Dr. Emrani,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Christian Schönbach, Dr.rer.nat.

Section Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

Acceptance letter

Christian Schönbach

2 Mar 2021

PONE-D-20-14035R2

Validation of suitable genes for normalization of diurnal gene expression studies in Chenopodium quinoa

Dear Dr. Emrani:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Christian Schönbach

Section Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. A260/A280 and A260/A230 ratios of RNA isolated from diurnal leaf samples of the Titicaca accession.

    (PDF)

    S2 Table. Reference gene candidates obtained from cross validation of literature survey and C. quinoa shoot and root transcriptome data [17].

    Selected genes were stably expressed at least in two out of four stress conditions in soil- and hydroponic-grown plants.

    (PDF)

    S3 Table. Minimum Information for Publication of Quantitative Real-Time PCR Experiments (MIQE): Checklist.

    (PDF)

    S1 Fig. RNA and cDNA quality control by electrophoresis.

    (A) 1.5% agarose gel of RNA isolated from leaf samples of the Titicaca accession; lanes 1 to 3: ZT-0, lanes 4 to 6: ZT-4, lanes 7 to 9: ZT-8, lanes 10 to 1, lanes 13 to 15: 2: ZT-12, lanes 13 to 15: ZT-16, lanes 16 to 18: ZT-20, lanes 19 to 21: ZT-24. Putative bands for 28S and 18S rRNA are indicated by arrows. Agarose gel was run for 40 min at 100 V (cropped gel). (B) 2.0% agarose gel of PCR products of cDNA synthesized from RNA leaf samples of Titicaca accession; lanes 1 to 3: ZT-0, lanes 4 to 6: ZT-4, lanes 7 to 9: ZT-8, lanes 10 to 1, lanes 13 to 15: 2: ZT-12, lanes 13 to 15: ZT-16, lanes 16 to 18: ZT-20, lanes 19 to 21: ZT-24. M: 50 bp ladder, PC: positive control, NC: water. Agarose gel was run for 30 min at 100 V (cropped gel).

    (TIF)

    S2 Fig. Standard curves of the selected candidate and target genes.

    Dilution factors 1:40 (2x), 1:20, 1:10 and 3:20 were used.

    (TIF)

    S3 Fig. Amplification of PCR products of expected sizes for each of the candidate genes.

    Lane 1: ACT, lane 2: GAPDH, lane 3: IDH-B, lane 4: IDH-A, lane 5: PTB, lane 6: TUB, lane 7: UBQ, lane 8: RAN-3, NC: water, M: 50 bp ladder. 2.0% agarose gel was run for 40 min at 100 V.

    (TIF)

    S4 Fig. Melting curves of the candidate genes.

    The curves were obtained from three technical replicates of three biological replicates (21 diurnal/circadian samples) for (A) CHEN-109 and (B) Titicaca.

    (TIF)

    S5 Fig. Verification of the primer combinations specificity by Sanger sequencing.

    Sequencing results of (A) ACT, IDH-A, IDH-B (B) PTB, UBQ, TUB and RAN-3. Sequences correspond to Titicaca accession aligned to the reference sequence (accession PI 614886) (Jarvis et al., 2017). Primers are annotated and coverage is shown (captions on the right side). Fw = sequenced with the forward primer, Rv = sequenced with the reverse primer.

    (TIF)

    S6 Fig. Reference gene candidates’ intergroup variation between Titicaca and CHEN-109.

    Variation was determined by NormFinder. Error bars represent the intragroup variation.

    (TIF)

    S7 Fig. Diurnal relative expression of GIGANTEA (CqGI).

    Relative CqGI expression normalized against each candidate gene, the combination of the two best genes for normalization of Titicaca determined by BestKeeper (IDH-A + PTB) and a constant Cq value of 20 (Simulation) are shown. Expression corresponds to the accession PI-587173. The bar at the top indicates light (empty box) and dark (filled box) phases. Error bars represent the SEM of three biological replicates.

    (TIF)

    S8 Fig. Simulated expression of the target genes with different Cq values.

    Target genes expression was normalized against a constant Cq value of (A) 16 (B) 18 (C) 22 (D) 24.

    (TIF)

    S9 Fig. Diurnal relative expression of ACT, IDH-A, IDH-B, PTB, UBQ, TUB, GAPDH and RAN-3.

    Relative expression normalized against IDH-A and PTB geometric mean. The bar at the top indicates light (empty box) and dark (filled box) phases. Error bars represent the SEM of three biological replicates.

    (TIF)

    S1 Raw images

    Full-length gels corresponding to cropped gels in (A) S1A Fig and (B) S1B Fig. Lanes labeled with an “X” in (B) correspond to different primer combinations tests for cDNA amplification by standard PCR. M: 50 bp ladder.

    (TIF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers_10.02.20.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES