Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2011 Nov 1.
Published in final edited form as: Mol Microbiol. 2010 Sep 29;78(3):770–787. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2958.2010.07366.x

Table 2.

Correlation analyses for CQ response vs. reversal agent potency and fold change in CQS and CQR progeny.

All progeny
CQ IC50 vs. VP CLM CT CQ+VP fold change CQ+CLM fold change CQ+CT fold change CQ+AM fold change
r -0.72 -0.95 -0.92 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98
p value *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
CQS progeny
CQS IC50 vs. VP CLM CT CQ+VP fold change CQ+CLM fold change CQ+CT fold change CQ+AM fold change
r 0.37 0.49 0.53 0.32 0.42 0.34 0.45
p value 0.12 0.03 0.02 0.19 0.07 0.15 0.06
CQR progeny
CQR IC50 vs. VP CLM CT CQ+VP fold change CQ+CLM fold change CQ+CT fold change CQ+AM fold change
r 0.48 0.55 0.75 0.15 0.02 0.08 0.04
p value 0.06 0.03 0.0001 0.59 0.93 0.78 0.89

VP, CLM, and CT represent IC50 values of reversal agents when used alone (i.e. potency)

Correlation analysis reported as Pearson’s correlation coefficient reported as an r value, and the p value determining if significantly deviating from zero.

***

p < 0.0001