Skip to main content

Table 3 Temperature and hypoxia treatment effects on the transcript expression of 41 target genes (qPCR validation)

From: The transcriptomic responses of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) to high temperature stress alone, and in combination with moderate hypoxia

Linear Mixed-Effect Models For Each Target Genea
Gene Intercept Treatment Post-hoc Test (lsmeans)
F-value p-value F-value p-value
apod 165.5 < 0.0001 15.46 0.026 CT vs WH
c1ql2 1954.6 < 0.0001 48.87 0.005 CT vs WN, CT vs WH
c3 132.1 < 0.0001 2.53 0.227  
calm 1875.4 < 0.0001 84.92 0.002 CT vs WN, CT vs WH
camp-a 429.4 < 0.0001 6.02 0.089  
casp8 249.8 < 0.0001 16.97 0.023 CT vs WN, CT vs WH
cat 19,704.0 < 0.0001 4.54 0.124  
cirbp 356.3 < 0.0001 84.34 0.002 CT vs WN, CT vs WH
cldn3 739.8 < 0.0001 13.75 0.031 WN vs WH
ctsh 509.5 < 0.0001 76.82 0.003 CT vs WN, CT vs WH
cul3 1087.0 < 0.0001 2.28 0.250  
cyp1a1 362.9 < 0.0001 30.48 0.010 CT vs WN, CT vs WH
dnmt1 1240.3 < 0.0001 40.65 0.007 CT vs WN, CT vs WH
egln2 5750.5 < 0.0001 76.76 0.003 CT vs WN, CT vs WH
epx 245.1 < 0.0001 19.68 0.019 CT vs WN, (CT vs WH)
gck 189.4 < 0.0001 2.47 0.232  
gstt1 802.0 < 0.0001 18.43 0.021 (CT vs WN), CT vs WH
hcn1 225.1 < 0.0001 41.89 0.006 CT vs WN, CT vs WH
hif1α 394.9 < 0.0001 10.88 0.042 (CT vs WN), CT vs WH
hsp70 61.6 < 0.0001 3.18 0.181  
hsp90aa1 291.6 < 0.0001 45.56 0.006 CT vs WN, CT vs WH
hsp90ab1 255.8 < 0.0001 2.05 0.275  
hspd1 1795.4 < 0.0001 167.12 0.001 CT vs WN, CT vs WH
igfbp2b1 81.7 < 0.0001 1.68 0.323  
il8 124.1 < 0.0001 3.72 0.154  
irf2 403.4 < 0.0001 0.89 0.499  
jak2 318.8 < 0.0001 8.01 0.053  
jund 166.4 < 0.0001 16.66 0.024 CT vs WN, CT vs WH
mhcii 93.8 < 0.0001 1.69 0.322  
mmp9 76.1 < 0.0001 9.23 0.052  
nckap1l 126.7 < 0.0001 17.66 0.022 CT vs WN, CT vs WH
ndufa1 4303.5 < 0.0001 0.58 0.611  
ndufa4 93.1 < 0.0001 8.26 0.060  
pdk3 1163.6 < 0.0001 16.22 0.025 CT vs WN, (CT vs WH)
prdx6 1814.2 < 0.0001 158.74 0.001 CT vs WN, CT vs WH
rraga 1624.3 < 0.0001 46.90 0.006 CT vs WN, CT vs WH
serpinh1 54,283.9 < 0.0001 31.67 0.010 CT vs WN, CT vs WH
tapbp 69.2 < 0.0001 0.14 0.878  
tnfrsf6b 69.6 < 0.0001 4.61 0.122  
txn 82.9 < 0.0001 3.21 0.180  
ucp2 409.9 < 0.0001 147.53 0.001 CT vs WN, CT vs WH
  Num DF = 1, Den DF = 18 Num DF = 2, Den DF = 3  
  1. a Linear mixed-effect models (LMEs) were performed for each gene individually to assess the effect of the fixed factor ‘treatment’ and included the random term ‘tank’. To investigate pairwise comparisons between the Control (CT), Warm & Normoxic (WN) and Warm & Hypoxic (WH) treatment groups the significant models were followed by lsmeans post-hoc tests with Tukey’s multiple comparisons adjustment of p-values. Significant values are marked in bold letters (p < 0.05) and trends are indicated in italics and/or in brackets (0.05 < p < 0.1)
Back to article page

BMC Genomics

ISSN: 1471-2164

Contact us