Table 5.
Sex | P value | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Treatment | Male | Female | Treatment | Sex | Treat*sex | |
ATF4 | CP | 5.85 ± 0.80 | 4.95 ± 1.13 | NS | NS | NS |
LPE | 5.00 ± 1.13 | 5.29 ± 0.72 | ||||
LPL | 4.51 ± 1.13 | 6.33 ± 0.80 | ||||
ATF6 | CP | 5.36 ± 0.98 | 5.86 ± 1.39 | NS | NS | NS |
LPE | 5.90 ± 1.39 | 4.73 ± 0.88 | ||||
LPL | 4.88 ± 1.39 | 4.83 ± 0.98 | ||||
Bax | CP | 8.37 ± 0.98 | 9.23 ± 1.38 | NS | NS | NS |
LPE | 8.39 ± 1.38 | 8.51 ± 0.87 | ||||
LPL | 10.40 ± 1.38 | 8.48 ± 0.98 | ||||
CD68 | CP | 0.09 ± 0.03 | 0.11 ± 0.04 | NS | NS | NS |
LPE | 0.11 ± 0.04 | 0.18 ± 0.03 | ||||
LPL | 0.22 ± 0.04 | 0.17 ± 0.03 | ||||
DDIT3 | CP | 0.68 ± 0.16 | 0.46 ± 0.15 | 0.02 | NS | NS |
LPE | 0.81 ± 0.26 | 1.17 ± 0.24 | ||||
LPL | 0.62 ± 0.20 | 1.08 ± 0.25 | ||||
HSPA5 | CP | 2.80 ± 0.47 | 2.28 ± 0.54 | NS | NS | NS |
LPE | 2.10 ± 0.50 | 2.84 ± 0.43 | ||||
LPL | 2.06 ± 0.49 | 2.76 ± 0.47 | ||||
MCP-1 | CP | 1.26 ± 0.30 | 0.69 ± 0.43 | NS | NS | NS |
LPE | 1.45 ± 0.43 | 1.40 ± 0.27 | ||||
LPL | 1.80 ± 0.43 | 1.27 ± 0.30 |
Advanced relative quantification of mRNA normalised to cyclophilin using Roche Lightcycler 480 software. Data are means ± SEM for offspring of ewes fed a control protein diet (CP, n = 6), or a low protein diet during early gestation (LPE, days 0–65, n = 7) or a low protein diet during late gestation (LPL, days 66 to term, n = 6). There were 3 males and 3 females in CP and LPL and 3 males and 4 females in LPE. Data were analysed by General Linear Model for the fixed effects of treatment, sex and their interaction (Genstat v13, VSNi, UK). NS, not significant. Gene symbols according to HUGO nomenclature (http://www.genenames.org/); ATF, activating transcription factor; DDIT3, DNA damage inducible transcript 3; HSPA5, heat shock 70 kDa Protein 5; MCP-1, monocyte chemotactic protein 1.