Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 Jan 1.
Published in final edited form as: Biochim Biophys Acta. 2016 Oct 19;1863(1):68–80. doi: 10.1016/j.bbadis.2016.10.017

Figure 5. Effects of dPrx3 and dPrx5 under-expression on gene expression during aging.

Figure 5

Genotypes of flies were described in Table 1. Control flies are heterozygotes carrying the dprx5 allele along with the Da-GAL4 driver (Da-GAL4, dprx5/+). All groups of flies were collected at different ages, as indicated in Table 2. RNA was isolated from at least 10 flies in each group. Primers for gene amplification are listed in the Suppl. Table 1. Results are means ± SEM of two replicates performed with three independent cohorts of flies (total n=6). There were no statically significant differences in age-specific changes in the levels of Dipt, Def, AttC, and Drs between the DM and single mutants and Control, as determined by analysis of the slopes of corresponding regression lines. Statistically significant differences were observed between DM and control (P=0.0433) and dprx3 mutant and control (P=0.021) for Dro; between Control and dprx5 (P=0.0347) for Mtk; between DM and Control (P=0.0138), and DM and dprx3 (P=0.0092) for AttD. Age-specific increase in AttA&B expression was significantly higher in DM compared to single dprx3 and dprx5 mutants and Control (P=0.0018, P=0.0141, P=0.0115). Extremely significant were differences in the expression of Arc1 between the DM and other fly lines, as determined by analysis of the intercepts (P<0.0001). Analysis of GstE1 expression, relied on comparison of the slopes and intercepts, showed statistical significance between the DM and dprx3 (P=0.0002), dprx5 (0.0458), and Control (P=0.0354).