Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2008 Nov 5.
Published in final edited form as: J Proteome Res. 2007 Mar 16;6(4):1560–1567. doi: 10.1021/pr060655k

Table 2.

Comparisons of mean DRC between dichotomized proteins’ concentration subgroups and their correlation on a continuous scale

Variable No. (%) DRC (Mean ± SD) P value * P value P value
p27 0.05
    High (>0.745) 58 (50.0) 10.91 ± 3.00 Ref. Ref.
    Low (≤0.745) 58 (50.0) 9.12± 2.41 0.00 0.00
CCND1 0.01
    High (>0.408) 60 (50.0) 10.67 ± 2.89 Ref. Ref.
    Low (≤0.408) 60 (50.0) 9.40 ± 2.65 0.01 0.03
ATM 0.03
    High (>0.623) 58 (50.0) 10.68 ± 3.10 Ref. Ref.
    Low (≤0.623) 58 (50.0) 9.37 ± 2.46 0.01 0.03
MDM2 0.04
    High (>0.853) 60 (50.0) 10.51 ± 2.91 Ref. Ref.
    Low (≤0.853) 60 (50.0) 9.55 ± 2.70 0.07 0.03
p73 0.16
    High (>0.242) 60 (50.0) 10.56 ± 2.76 Ref. Ref.
    Low (≤0.242) 60 (50.0) 9.50 ± 2.83 0.04 0.07
p21 0.08
    High (>0.510) 58 (49.6) 10.52 ± 2.62 Ref. Ref.
    Low (≤0.510) 59 (50.4) 9.56 ± 3.01 0.07 0.09
p53 0.24
    High (>0.423) 58 (49.6) 10.33 ± 2.88 Ref. Ref.
    Low (≤0.423) 59 (50.4) 9.75 ± 2.82 0.28 0.13
p16 0.02
    High (>0.564) 60 (50.0) 10.34 ± 2.80 Ref. Ref.
    Low (≤0.564) 60 (50.0) 9.72 ± 2.86 0.23 0.18
*

Two-sided Student's t tests

Obtained from GLM with adjustment for age, sex, blastogenic rate and storage time

Obtained from Pearson correlation analysis for between the protein expression levels and DRC levels on a continuous scale.