TABLE 3.
Antimicrobial expression in response to R. montanensis challenge
| Antimicrobial | Tissue | Time (h) | No. of replicates (control, challenged)a | Median difference (n-fold) (negative difference [n-fold])b,d | 95% CIc | P valued |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Defensin-1 | Fat body | 18 | 4, 5 | 0.5731 (−1.74) | 0.5336-0.6156 | 0.0041 |
| 24 | 4, 4 | 0.0909 (−1.00) | 0.0846-0.0976 | 0.0006 | ||
| 48 | 4, 6 | +1.396 | 1.230-1.499 | 0.0334 | ||
| 72 | 4, 4 | 0.2131 (−4.693) | 0.1984-0.2288 | 0.0008 | ||
| Midgut | 18 | 7, 7 | 0.4001 (−2.5) | 0.3885-0.4120 | 0.0022 | |
| 24 | 7, 7 | +2.650 | 2.573-2.729 | 0.0001 | ||
| 48 | 4, 5 | +1.764 | 1.713-1.816 | 0.0016 | ||
| 72 | 7, 7 | +1.15 | 1.110-1.184 | 0.1842 | ||
| Defensin-2 | Fat body | 18 | 4, 5 | 0.9504 (−1.502) | 0.8530-1.059 | 0.5000 |
| 24 | 4, 4 | 0.4045 (−2.472) | 0.3630-0.4507 | 0.0060 | ||
| 48 | 4, 5 | 0.4784 (−2.090) | 0.4294-0.5331 | 0.0074 | ||
| 72 | 4, 4 | +1.579 | 1.418-1.760 | 0.0056 | ||
| Midgut | 18 | 7, 8 | 0.7508 (−1.332) | 0.7445-0.7573 | 0.0265 | |
| 24 | 7, 7 | +1.932 | 1.916-1.948 | 0.0008 | ||
| 48 | 4, 4 | +1.102 | 1.093-1.111 | 0.1763 | ||
| 72 | 6, 6 | 0.7297 (−1.37) | 0.7235-0.7360 | 0.0265 | ||
| Lysozyme | Fat body | 18 | 4, 5 | +7.576 | 6.975-8.229 | 1.386E−07 |
| 24 | 3, 4 | +1.868 | 1.720-2.029 | 0.0012 | ||
| 48 | 4, 5 | 0.0356 (−28.12) | 0.0327-0.0386 | 0.0008 | ||
| 72 | 3, 4 | +1.413 | 1.301-1.535 | 0.0099 | ||
| Midgut | 18 | 4, 6 | 0.9725 (−1.028) | 0.9182-1.030 | 0.1289 | |
| 24 | 6, 6 | +1.636 | 1.545-1.733 | 0.0044 | ||
| 48 | 4, 4 | 0.9302 (−1.075) | 0.8784-0.9852 | 0.0758 | ||
| 72 | 5, 6 | +1.810 | 1.709-1.917 | 0.0017 |
Numbers of replicated experiments in which one tick served as a replicate.
The difference (n-fold) is calculated as the ratio of normalized median values for challenged ticks to normalized median values for control ticks. Ratios of ≤1 are represented as −1/median difference (n-fold).
95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated for the experimental median difference (n-fold) data by using the population variance derived as described by Price and Bonett (36) and Bonett and Price (1).
Results for challenged ticks were said to be significantly different from those for the controls if the experimental median difference (n-fold) exceeded the upper or lower limit of the 95% confidence interval calculated for each antimicrobial population data set by using methods described by Price and Bonett (36) and Bonett and Price (1). Defensin-1 fat-body population critical limits, 1.069 and 1.234; defensin-1 midgut population critical limits, 1.017 and 1.078; defensin-2 fat-body population critical limits, 0.6450 and 1.550; defensin-2 midgut population critical limits, 0.9965 and 1.014; lysozyme fat-body population critical limits. 0.9206 and 1.086; lysozyme midgut population critical limits, 1.030 and 1.155. P values were derived from the antimicrobial population distributions as described in the appendix.