Skip to main content
. 2018 Oct 24;9:1547. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2018.01547

Table 2.

Cytoembryological analysis of transformed and control plants.

Plant H E N Ab V AES AES/N KW (ranks/group) MES MES/N (95% CI)
#RNAi1 + + 40 17 23 41 1.02 50.54/A 9 0.225 (0.114 < p < 0.388)
#RNAi2 + + 43 9 34 54 1.25 57.38/A 8 0.186 (0.089 < p < 0.339)
#TC1 - + 24 1 23 82 3.41 111.69/B 4 0.166 (0.0548 < p < 0.381)
#TC2 - + 21 3 18 100 4.76 131.64/B 6 0.285 (0.121 < p < 0.523)
#Q4117 - - 42 4 38 142 3.38 109.55/B 9 0.214 (0.108 < p < 0.372)

H, QUI-GON hairpin; E, eGFP; N, number of ovules analyzed; Ab, aborted ovules (without embryo sacs); V, potentially viable ovules (with sacs); AES, total number of aposporous embryo sacs; AES/N, average number of aposporous embryo sac per ovule; KW, Test of Kruskal–Wallis comparing the AES per ovule variable; MES, total number of meiotic embryo sacs; MES/N, average number of meiotic embryo sacs per ovule; 95% CI, ninety-five % confidence intervals around MES/N proportions were calculated by using the Newcombe method (Newcombe, 1998) with a correction for continuity (http://vassarstats.net/prop1.html), as described in the section “Materials and Methods.” Aposporous embryo sacs (AES) can be readily distinguished from meiotic ones (MES) since they lack antipodal cells.