Table 2.
Statistical evaluation of data in Fig. 6
| Genotype | FLAG-Krt18 | FLAG-Des | FLAG-Krt19 |
|---|---|---|---|
| WT vs. Krt18-KO | 0.2560 | 1 | 0.225 |
| WT vs. Krt18-DN | 0 | 1 | 0.728 |
| WT vs. Krt19-KO | 0.00000021 | 1 | 0.476 |
| WT vs. Des-KO | 0.00007142 | 1 | 0.00000003 |
| WT vs. DKO | 0.00170 | 0.244 | 0.0000145 |
| Krt18-DN vs. Krt19-KO | 0.51 | NA | 0.503 |
| Krt19-KO vs. Des-KO | 0.000056 | NA | NA |
| Krt18-DN vs. Des-KO | 0.000058 | NA | NA |
| Krt18-DN vs. DKO | 0.0000041 | NA | NA |
| Des-KO vs. DKO | 0.596 | NA | NA |
| Krt19-KO vs. DKO | 0.000028 | NA | NA |
| Krt18-KO vs. Krt18-DN | NA | NA | 0.218 |
P values in Fig. 6 were calculated from 2 × 3 Fisher’s exact test, comparing the organization of electroporated FLAG-tagged Krt18, Krt19, and desmin constructs into multiple genotypes. Calculations were performed with https://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc/calculator.aspx?id=58. DKO, double knockout; DN, dominant negative; NA, not applicable; WT, wild type.