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)