realt-time PCR

Recently, I was invited back to my old lab to give a presentation about a particular method used to analyse qPCR (real-time PCR) data - specifically, the 2-DDCt method (read delta for D). It's apparently also known as the comparative Ct method.
I didn't mind doing it, but it was like 4 years ago when I last touched a qPCR machine, let alone do a complete analysis of results. So whilst I was okay with the whole idea (thinking that I should really get paid for such a service), I was curious as to why.

The whole presentation was to do with the theoretical aspects of the 2DDCt method, as developed by Livak and Schmittgen in their 2001 paper - so I decided, sadistically, to go through the derivation of the formula, as well as go through one example in detail, including calculating the errors.
I wasn't quite sure who was going to be there, and what kind of background they had - I thought I shouldn't really go into the details of tehcniques or mechanism of qPCR, but just stick to the actual analysis, and iron it out. Rather like a detailed journal club, if only in describing the details of the paper in biologist's terms.

Anyway, I enjoyed doing it. I have to admit, I REALLY enjoyed going through the actual derivation of the formula used (I went back to the original paper for that). I enjoyed seeing the eyes of some of the members of the audience, almost glaze over, as I put up slide after slide of mathematical equations. Biologists, ay? I am forever greatful for my understanding of mathematics.

Although I did mention being sadistic, there is a reason why I thought it better to go through the derivation, even if that meant biologists dying from a mathematical equation induced coma. There are two assumptions made in the derivation that leads to the final formula. And to drive home the point of the importance of these assumptions, it was necessary to derive the formula, so I could point out exactly WHY you must adhere to them.
We all know that people take shortcuts. Hell, I do too. But as in most cases, you have to know what you can cut out, and what you can't. And these assumptions are certainly NOT something you can wiggle your way around. And yes, I have seen people try to.

Suffice to say that my presentation was a hit. And it transpired that the reason why I was asked to do a presentation, was because a lot of people in the Faculty were using the standard curve method - and people in my former lab still used the comparative Ct method, probably because I used it.
Apparently the postdoc in my former lab had overheard a conversation, whereby the technician running the qPCR machine facility was telling another researcher about why he preferred the standard curve method - to which the researcher answered that he preferred to use the comparative Ct method, because he understood the limitations.
Now, my former lab apparently has been having some problems with qPCR results. I don't know why and where to reasons or blames lie, but it seems they were slightly confused (as well as presented with peer pressure) as to why they were using the comparative Ct method when everyone else was doing it the standard curve way. Peer pressure is an evil thing.

Of course, that does leave the question - couldn't someone in their lab do a search to look for a paper that had done a comparative study between the analysis methods??