Skip to main content
. 2017 Aug 21;10:1973–1989. doi: 10.2147/JPR.S132682

Table S2.

Correlation matrix for DWB data and expression levels

Δ weight (%m) vs. Sox9 Δ weight (%m) vs. Comp Δ weight (%m) vs. Mmp3 Δ weight (%m) vs. Mmp9 Δ weight (%m) vs. Mmp13 Δ weight (%m) vs. Timp1
Inline graphic weight (%m) vs gene expression  r 0.05944 −0.04753 −0.09938 −0.09954 0.4122 0.2161
 95% confidence interval −0.8685 to 0.8949 −0.8924 to 0.8714 −0.9026 to 0.8582 −0.9026 to 0.8582 −0.7389 to 0.9493 −0.8232 to 0.9225
 R square 0.003533 0.002259 0.009877 0.009908 0.1699 0.04668
 P (one-tailed) 0.4622 0.4698 0.4368 0.4367 0.2452 0.3635
p-value summary ns ns ns ns ns ns
 Significant? (α = 0.05) No No No No No No
Number of XY pairs 5 5 5 5 5 5

Δ weight (%m) vs. Cnr1 Δ weight (%m) vs. Cnr2 Δ weight (%m) vs. Faah Δ weight (%m) vs. Napepld Δ weight (%m) vs. Alox15 Δ weight (%m) vs. Ptsg2

 r −0.5224 −0.03812 −0.1887 0.005075 0.3837 0.3332
 95% confidence interval −0.9615 to 0.6677 −0.8905 to 0.8736 −0.9182 to 0.8322 −0.8812 to 0.8835 −0.7539 to 0.9458 −0.7778 to 0.9394
 R square 0.2729 0.001453 0.03561 2.58E-05 0.1472 0.111
 P (one-tailed) 0.1832 0.4757 0.3806 0.4968 0.2619 0.2919
p-value summary ns ns ns ns ns ns
 Significant? (α = 0.05) No No No No No No
Number of XY pairs 5 5 5 5 5 5

Inline graphic weight (%m) vs gene expression Δ weight (%m) vs. Timp2 Δ weight (%m) vs. Gde1 Δ weight (%m) vs. Plcb1 Δ weight (%m) vs. Alox12 Δ weight (%m) vs. Pla2g2a Δ weight (%m) vs. TIMP1

 r 0.04022 0.5007 0.3764 0.399 0.2813 0.2321
 95% confidence interval −0.8731 to 0.8909 −0.6837 to 0.9593 −0.7575 to 0.9449 −0.7460 to 0.9477 −0.7995 to 0.9322 −0.8177 to 0.9250
 R square 0.001618 0.2507 0.1417 0.1592 0.07911 0.05387
 P (one-tailed) 0.4744 0.1951 0.2662 0.2529 0.3233 0.3536
p-value summary ns ns ns ns ns ns
 Significant? (α = 0.05) No No No No No No
Number of XY pairs 5 5 5 5 5 5

Δ weight (%m) vs. SOX9 Δ weight (%m) vs. COMP Δ weight (%m) vs. MMP3 Δ weight (%m) vs. MMP2 Δ weight (%m) vs. MMP9 Δ weight (%m) vs. MMP13

 r 0.5237 0.6089 0.07722 0.9253 −0.4425 0.3316
 95% confidence interval −0.6667 to 0.9617 −0.5909 to 0.9701 −0.8640 to 0.8984 0.2340 to 0.9952 −0.9528 to 0.7216 −0.7785 to 0.9392
 R square 0.2743 0.3707 0.005963 0.8562 0.1958 0.11
 P (one-tailed) 0.1825 0.1379 0.4509 0.0121 0.2278 0.2928
p-value summary ns ns ns * ns ns
 Significant? (α = 0.05) No No No Yes No No
Number of XY pairs 5 5 5 5 5 5

Δ weight (%m) vs. CB1 Δ weight (%m) vs. CB2 Δ weight (%m) vs. FAAH Δ weight (%m) vs. NAPE- PLD Δ weight (%m) vs. 15LOX2 Δ weight (%m) vs. COX2

 r 0.8844 0.5222 0.8038 −0.8895 0.364 0.7891
 95% confidence interval 0.009190 to 0.9924 −0.6679 to 0.9615 −0.2701 to 0.9865 −0.9927 to -0.03346 −0.7636 to 0.9434 −0.3071 to 0.9854
 R square 0.7821 0.2726 0.6461 7.91E-01 0.1325 0.6226
 P (one-tailed) 0.0232 0.1834 0.0506 0.0217 0.2735 0.0563
p-value summary * ns ns * ns ns
 Significant? (alpha = 0.05) Yes No No Yes No No
Number of XY Pairs 5 5 5 5 5 5

Notes: Correlation matrix for DWB data and expression levels. Pearson correlation analysis has been performed: 1) between behavioral effects and alterations in gene expression levels, and 2) between behavioral effects and alterations in protein expression levels (grey shading); p<0.05 has been considered significant.

Abbreviations: COMP, cartilage oligomeric matrix protein; MMP, matrix metalloproteinase; TIMP, tissue inhibitors of metalloproteinase; FAAH, fatty acid amide hydrolase; NAPE-PLD, N-acyl phosphatidylethanolamine phospholipase D.