- WBPaper00032022:X-Ray_upregulated
Gene was considered induced if the difference in expression levels was significant (p < 0.05) compared to the control. To be considered the change in expression had to be at least 2 fold compared to the control.
Genes induced at least 2 fold 2 hours after 120Gy X-ray treatment
- WBPaper00034739:TreatmentAffectedGenes
The normalised data were analysed using a two-way ANOVA, testing for each gene the effects of LINE (N2, DR1350, RIL-14, RIL-17), TREATMENT (non-dauer vs dauer larva-inducing) and the LINE TREATMENT interaction, using a published PERL script.
Genes with expression significantly affected by TREATMENT (non-dauer vs dauer), or TREATMENT X LINE at p < 0.001.
- WBPaper00054191:H3.3(null)_embryo_downregulated
Differentially expressed genes were estimated using a General Linear Model approach, negative binomial distribution, and a quasi-likelihood F-test. Genes with a P-value < 0.05 and fold change > 1 were considered significant.
Transcripts that showed significantly decreased expression in H3.3 null mutant animals (FAS43 [his-69&his-70(uge44) III; his-72(tm2066) III; his-74(uge18) V; his-71(ok2289) X]) comparing to in N2 animals at embryo stage.
- WBPaper00054191:H3.3(null)_embryo_upregulated
Differentially expressed genes were estimated using a General Linear Model approach, negative binomial distribution, and a quasi-likelihood F-test. Genes with a P-value < 0.05 and fold change > 1 were considered significant.
Transcripts that showed significantly increased expression in H3.3 null mutant animals (FAS43 [his-69&his-70(uge44) III; his-72(tm2066) III; his-74(uge18) V; his-71(ok2289) X]) comparing to in N2 animals at embryo stage.
- WBPaper00054191:H3.3(null)_L1_downregulated
Differentially expressed genes were estimated using a General Linear Model approach, negative binomial distribution, and a quasi-likelihood F-test. Genes with a P-value < 0.05 and fold change > 1 were considered significant.
Transcripts that showed significantly decreased expression in H3.3 null mutant animals (FAS43 [his-69&his-70(uge44) III; his-72(tm2066) III; his-74(uge18) V; his-71(ok2289) X]) comparing to in N2 animals at L1 larva stage.
- WBPaper00054191:H3.3(null)_L1_upregulated
Differentially expressed genes were estimated using a General Linear Model approach, negative binomial distribution, and a quasi-likelihood F-test. Genes with a P-value < 0.05 and fold change > 1 were considered significant.
Transcripts that showed significantly increased expression in H3.3 null mutant animals (FAS43 [his-69&his-70(uge44) III; his-72(tm2066) III; his-74(uge18) V; his-71(ok2289) X]) comparing to in N2 animals at L1 larva stage.
- WBPaper00045257:bar-1(ga80)_upregulated
All statistical analyses were performed using the statistical programming language R (version 2.13.1 x 64). A linear model was used to determine the effect and significance of the genotype on the expression levels (probe intensity + genotype + error). Using permutations of the original data in the same linear model, authors determined thresholds adjusted for multiple testing (FDR 0.05: -log10(p) > 2; FDR 0.01: -log10(p) > 3). To correct for the developmental difference between bar-1(ga80) and N2 authors used the developmental gene expression data from Snoek et al. (2014) together with the gene expression data generated for this study (bar-1(ga80) vs. N2) in one linear model (probe intensity, sample age + genotype + error). The intensities were corrected for batch effect and for sample age authors used an age of 44 hours for the bar-1(ga80) samples (as estimated), and 48 hours for the N2 samples.
Genes that showed increased expression in bar-1(ga80) animal comparing to in N2.
- WBPaper00045257:bar-1(ga80)_downregulated
All statistical analyses were performed using the statistical programming language R (version 2.13.1 x 64). A linear model was used to determine the effect and significance of the genotype on the expression levels (probe intensity + genotype + error). Using permutations of the original data in the same linear model, authors determined thresholds adjusted for multiple testing (FDR 0.05: -log10(p) > 2; FDR 0.01: -log10(p) > 3). To correct for the developmental difference between bar-1(ga80) and N2 authors used the developmental gene expression data from Snoek et al. (2014) together with the gene expression data generated for this study (bar-1(ga80) vs. N2) in one linear model (probe intensity, sample age + genotype + error). The intensities were corrected for batch effect and for sample age authors used an age of 44 hours for the bar-1(ga80) samples (as estimated), and 48 hours for the N2 samples.
Genes that showed decreased expression in bar-1(ga80) animal comparing to in N2.