Table 2. Fertility Data.
| Transgenic lines | Number ofmales testedfor fertility (n) | Number ofmales fertile | Number oflitters | Mean time (days) elapsed between two consecutivelitters ± SEM(min – max) | Average littersize ± SEM | Fertility status |
| eTg-M7 | 10 | 0 | 0 | N/A | N/A | Infertile |
| eTg-F1 | 13 | 4 | 12 | 23.1±0.7 (21–27) | 7.1±0.6a | Sub- fertile |
| pTg-M26 | 5 | 5 | 11 | 22.3±0.5 (19–25) | 8.6±0.9a,b | Fertile |
| pTg-M30 | 3 | 3 | 9 | 20.4±0.7 (18–23) | 9.2±0.9b | Fertile |
| Control (+/−) | 3 | 3 | 8 | 20.9±0.3 (20–21) | 9.0±0.7b | Fertile |
The Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric one-way ANOVA by rank was employed and results were analyzed post-hoc by Dunn’s procedure for performing two-tailed multiple pairwise comparisons. Differences were considered significant if p<0.05.
a, b… denote significantly different groups.
SEM denotes Standard Error of the Mean.