Table 4.

Analysis of variance results for ΔC_T values

Gene symbol	Gland	Diet	Genotype effect	Post hoc comparison1 P-value	Fold change CON vs. WT	Diet effect	Post hoc comparison1 P-value	Fold change LF vs. HF; 2-choice vs. chow	Genotype × Diet
Dcpp22	SL	Chow	F = 326.24 P < 0.0001	P < 0.001	−18.1	F = 3.10 P = 0.08	–	–	ns
	SL	2-choice		P < 0.001	−11.9		–	–
	SL	HF	F = 18.84 P = 0.0002	P < 0.05	−4.0	ns	–	–	ns
	SL	LF		P < 0.05	−6.9		–	–
Prrt1	SL	Chow	F = 4.53 P = 0.03	ns	–	ns	–	–	ns
	SL	2-choice		P < 0.05	1.6		–	–
	SL	HF	ns	–	–	ns	–	–	ns
	SL	LF		–	–		–	–
	SM	Chow	F = 13.86 P = 0.0006	ns	–	ns	–	–	ns
	SM	2-choice		P < 0.01	1.6		–	–
	SM	HF	ns	–	–	ns	–	–	ns
	SM	LF		–	–		–	–
	P	Chow	F = 3.56 P = 0.06	–	–	F = 65.17 P < 0.0001	CON, P < 0.001	−2.0	ns
	P	2-choice		–	–		WT, P < 0.001	−2.4
	P	HF	Not tested	–	–	Not tested	–	–	Not tested
	P	LF		–	–		–	–
Has1	SL	Chow	F = 8.65 P = 0.005	ns	1.6	ns	–	–	ns
	SL	2-choice		ns	1.5		–	–
	SL	HF	ns	–	–	ns	–	–	ns
	SL	LF		–	–		–	–
	SM	Chow	ns	–	–	ns	–	–	ns
	SM	2-choice		–	–		–	–
	SM	HF	F = 38.09 P < 0.0001	P < 0.01	−2.4	F = 6.64 P < 0.05	WT, P < 0.05	1.9	P = 0.11
	SM	LF		P < 0.001	−4.1		CON, ns	–
	P	Chow	ns	–	–	ns	–	–	ns
	P	2-choice		–	–		–	–
	P	HF	Not tested	–	–	Not tested	–	–	Not tested
	P	LF		–	–		–	–

¹Bonferroni. ns, non significant; CON, subcongenic; WT, wild type; HF, high-fat; LF, low-fat.

²Dcpp2 showed very low abundance in SM and P. 2-choice indicates fat- versus carbohydrate-rich diets. SL, sublingual; SM, submandibular; P, parotid.