Table 1.
Pair-wise comparison of groups vs. control by significance analysis for microarrays (SAM) two class unpaired
| Gene symbol | IRI | IPC | IPO | IPC + IPO |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Angiogenesis inhibitors | ||||
| Il1rn | + | + | + | |
| Rnh1 | + | |||
| Scye1 | + | + | + | |
| Serpinf1 | + | + | + | |
| Wars | + | |||
| Angiogenesis modulating agents | ||||
| Anpep | + | + | + | |
| C1galt1 | + | |||
| Ccnd1 | + | + | + | + |
| Ceacam1 | + | |||
| Cyr61 | + | + | + | |
| Elk3_predicted | + | + | ||
| Enpep | + | + | ||
| Mmp14 | + | + | ||
| Pik3r1 | + | + | ||
| Plau | + | + | ||
| Ppap2b | + | |||
| Pten | + | |||
| Ptprj | + | |||
| Rela | + | + | + | |
| Serpine1 | + | + | + | |
| Smad5 | + | + | ||
| Sphk2 | + | + | + | |
| Tnfrsf12a | + | + | ||
| Tnfrsf1a | + | + | + | |
| Zfp36l1 | + | + | + | |
| Angiogenesis inducers | ||||
| Ang2 | + | + | ||
| Angptl2 | + | |||
| Arts1 | + | |||
| Ccl2 | + | + | + | + |
| Epas1 | + | + | ||
| Flt1 | + | |||
| Lgals3 | + | + | + | |
| Myc | + | + | + | + |
| Nrg1 | + | + | ||
| Pold4 | + | |||
| Tgfb1 | + | |||
| Vegfa | + | |||
| Yars | + | + | ||
+ indicates a significant up regulation of expression level in the rat liver compared with the control group. The table categorise genes into three main functions on angiogenesis. All of the 99 genes tested in this comparison analysis are known to be involved in rat angiogenesis. IRI, 30 min of ischaemia. IPC, ischaemic pre-conditioning + 30 min of ischaemia. IPO, 30 min ischaemia + ischaemic post-conditioning. IPC + IPO, ischaemic pre-conditioning + 30 min of ischaemia + ischaemic post-conditioning.