Table 2. The effect of the sigma virus compared to bacterial and fungal infection on gene expression.
Sigma virus infected flies | Bacteria and fungus infected males | |||
Sex | Change expression | Up-regulateda | Down-regulateda | No change |
Female | Up-regulatedb | 2 | 0 | 38 |
Down-regulatedb | 4 | 7 | 67 | |
No change | 77 | 69 | 3264 | |
Male | Up-regulatedb | 5 | 5 | 230 |
Down-regulatedb | 13 | 12 | 277 | |
No change | 89 | 81 | 3743 | |
Combined | Up-regulatedb | 7 | 5 | 266 |
Down-regulatedb | 14 | 17 | 319 | |
No change | 93 | 80 | 4447 |
Only genes included in both datasets are shown. There is no significant association between the two datasets in any of the three comparisons (Fisher Exact tests on 2×2 contingency tables of genes showing a significant change in expression).
In the list of 400 ‘Drosophila Immune Related Genes’ identified by De Gregorio [28].
Significant at P<0.02.