Table.
Comparison of the Maxillary Defect in E18.5 Six1–/–, Six1–/–Six2+/–, Six1–/–Ednra+/–, Six1–/–Six2+/–Ednra+/–, Six1–/–Bmp4+/–, and Six1–/–Six2+/–Bmp4+/– Mutant Mice.
| Genotype | Total Number | Unilateral Maxillary Defect | Bilateral Maxillary Defect | Percentage with Maxillary Defecta |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Six1 –/– | 28 | 6 | 5 | 39.3 |
| Six1 –/– Six2 +/– | 18 | 5 | 11 | 88.9 |
| Six1 –/– Ednra +/– | 8 | 1 | 0 | 12.5 |
| Six1 –/– Six2 +/– Ednra +/– | 9 | 5 | 0 | 55.6 |
| Six1 –/– Bmp4 +/– | 9 | 1 | 0 | 11.1 |
| Six1 –/– Six2 +/– Bmp4 +/– | 11 | 3 | 1 | 36.4 |
a
Student’s t test analyses showed significant increase in the frequency of the maxillary defect from Six1–/– to Six1–/–Six2+/– mice (P < 0.05) and significant reduction in frequency of the phenotype from Six1–/– to Six1–/–Ednra+/– and Six1–/–Bmp4+/– mice, respectively (P < 0.05). The frequency of the maxillary defect also significantly decreased from Six1–/–Six2+/– to Six1–/–Six2+/–Ednra+/– and Six1–/–Six2+/–Bmp4+/– mice, respectively (P < 0.05).