TABLE 3.

Differences between microbial fingerprints of ‘Baltica’ and GM lines and among all potato genotypes

DGGE gel	Plant growth stage	% Differences for the following comparisonsa:
		Roggenstein, 2005		Oberviehhausen, 2006		Roggenstein, 2007
		‘Baltica’ and GM lines	All genotypes	‘Baltica’ and GM lines	All genotypes	‘Baltica’ and GM lines	All genotypes
Bacteria	EC30	0.4	4.4**	1.8	1.4
	EC60	1.7	4.0**	0.0	1.2	0.0	0.8
	EC90	0.6	13.1**	0.5	4.5**	0.0	0.9
Pseudomonas	EC30	0.0	3.1**	0.0	0.2
	EC60	0.1	0.3	0.0	0.1	0.0	0.0
	EC90	0.2	2.4**	0.0	5.7**	0.0	1.4**
gacA	EC30	0.0	0.0	0.0	1.0
	EC60	0.2	0.0	0.1	0.3	0.0	3.8**
	EC90	0.0	5.1**	0.0	3.3*	0.0	0.0
Actinobacteria	EC30	2.6**	6.4**	0.0	0.6
	EC60	3.0**	3.7**	0.0	0.0	0.0	1.4*
	EC90	4.5**	9.7**	0.9	0.0	0.0	0.0
Streptomycetaceae	EC30	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
	EC60	0.5	0.1	0.0	1.2	0.0	0.0
	EC90	2.8*	1.4	0.0	0.3	0.1	0.0
Alphaproteobacteria	EC30	0.0	1.1*	1.8	0.0
	EC60	0.0	0.7	1.7	0.0	0.0	0.0
	EC90	0.0	1.4*	0.0	0.2	0.0	0.0
Betaproteobacteria	EC30	0.0	1.1	1.1	5.1**
	EC60	4.6	1.7	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
	EC90	2.8*	3.1**	0.0	2.7**	0.0	0.0
Bacillus	EC30	3.2	0.2	0.0	0.0
	EC60	0.0	1.8*	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.4
	EC90	0.0	9.8**	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Fungi	EC30	5.4*	14.3**	0.8	3.0**
	EC60	1.2	3.1**	2.3**	3.9**	1.5	3.0**
	EC90	1.9*	6.9**	1.7	4.2**	1.3	5.8**
Ascomycetes	EC30	4.8**	13.6**	0.0	3.5**
	EC60	3.2	6.2**	1.4**	2.6**	2.2**	5.1**
	EC90	6.6**	9.0**	1.8*	3.9**	3.5**	7.9**

^a*, significant difference (P ≤ 0.05); **, highly significant difference (P ≤ 0.01).