Table 3. ER stress, sphingolipid, and chromatin anchoring mutations in rad9∆ background.

Genotype	Unstable Chr. (×10−5)		Allelic rec. (×10−5)		Chr. loss (×10−4)
	Median (Q1, Q3)	Fold stabil.	Median (Q1, Q3)	Fold stabil.	Median (Q1, Q3)	Fold stabil.
rad9∆	57 (40, 71)	1	6.0 (2.8, 8.2)	1	22 (16, 39)	1
rad9∆ erv25∆	26 (23, 37)	2.3*	4.2 (3.1, 5.4)	1.5	12 (7.5, 23)	1.8*
rad9∆ scj1∆	28 (22, 36)	2.0*	3.7 (2.9, 5.3)	1.6*	8.5 (7.1, 11)	2.6*
rad9∆ isc1∆	34 (24, 39)	1.7*	4.0 (2.0, 5.0)	1.5*	14 (11, 27)	1.6*
rad9∆ scs7∆	77 (51, 154)	0.74	8.6 (5.9, 11)	0.70	66 (33, 120)	0.33*
rad9∆ sur2∆	45 (39, 53)	1.3	4.5 (3.0, 6.2)	1.3	15 (11, 27)	1.5
rad9∆ esc1∆	96 (78, 120)	0.59*	5.3 (2.9, 7.7)	1.1	34 (24, 46)	0.65
rad9∆ esc1∆ yku80∆	75 (61, 100)	0.76*	4.1 (3.1, 5.7)	1.5	29 (15, 63)	0.76

Instability frequencies and genome fold stabilization in mutant protein folding/transport, sphingolipid, and chromatin anchoring in rad9Δ background normalized to rad9Δ. Cells with a light gray background indicate genome fold stabilization increase; cells with a white background indicate decreased fold stabilization (<1.0 = increased instability) or no change in stabilization (=1.0). Statistically significant appears in boldface type. Kruskal–Wallis test, * P < 0.01.