Skip to main content
. 2016 Oct 5;8:229. doi: 10.3389/fnagi.2016.00229

Table 2.

Main functional classes at the protein-protein (P-P) level prevailing by the Age Ratio# discriminating criterion.

Ontology process Genes with age ratio# < 1 Genes with age ratio# >1
Hypergeometric Probability* Hypergeometric Probability*
Anti-apoptotic mechanisms 4.4 × 10−4 5.2 × 10−8
Apoptosis induction 4.1 × 10−2 2.6 × 10−4
Platelet activation, blood coagulation 7.8 × 10−3 9.7 × 10−7
NGF signaling 1.3 × 10−3 1.6 × 10−7
Laminin 5 and 2 Complex 3.0 × 10−6
Response to hypoxia 1.9 × 10−2 8.5 × 10−6
Kainate selective glutamate receptors 3.4 × 10−2 1.1 × 10−3
Axogenesis, axon guidance NDAS** 1.9 × 10−3
Dendritic spines NDAS 2.2 × 10−2
Cell aging NDAS 4.2 × 10−3
Nitric oxide production 4.0 × 10−2 5.4 × 10−3
Response to nutrients 2.8 × 10−2 7.8 × 10−3
Endothelial cell, vascular development, VEGFR activity 2.4 × 10−2 5.7 × 10−3
Cholesterol, lipoprotein for lipids transport 3.5 × 10−4 1.5 × 10−3
Golgi transport complex, vesicles (endosome, coated, endocytic) NDAS 9.5 × 10−3
Response to DNA damage 6.0 × 10−3 1.1 × 10−3
Response to steroids 3.0 × 10−3 1.3 × 10−2
Mineralocorticoid response 9.1 × 10−2 1.5 × 10−4
Acute inflammatory response 1.79 × 10−1 1.7 × 10−4
Leukocyte chemotaxis, response to LPS, defense against virus 1.1 × 10−1 5.5 × 10−3
Monocyte activation NDAS 5.2 × 10−2
CYTOKINES
TGFbeta production 1.1 × 10−1 1.0 × 10−5
Interleukin IL-1 1.1 × 10−1 6.1 × 10−3
TNFsuperfamily 1.1 × 10−1 1.6 × 10−2
Interleukin IL-4 2.7 × 10−1 3.0 × 10−4
Interleukin IL-6 3.6 × 10−3 6.1 × 10−4
Interleukin IL-8 2.4 × 10−2 1.8 × 10−4
Interleukin IL-10 9.6 × 10−2 6.1 × 10−3
IFNG production 2.5 × 10−2 1.0 × 10−3
Interleukin IL-18 NDAS 5.2 × 10−2
Interleukin IL-23 3.4 × 10−2 6.1 × 10−3

Functionalities are derived by ontology analysis of the compatible P-P networks computed on the basis of those corresponding to the nucleus 1, which comes from the whole list of age-dependent genes (for details see the Table S3).

*

The hypergeometric probabilities are values corrected for the multi-comparisons. In addition, the values indicated are the averages of the probabilities along the several ontology categories that make up each sub-group defined, but weighed according to the relative frequency of the initial ontology classes that resulted from the analysis;

**

NDAS, no-detected as significant.