Table 2.

Differences in cold‐responsive gene expression between SW and IT and the average effect of CBF2 loss‐of‐function (LOF) mutations on cold‐responsive expression for the 10 candidate genes. Differences in cold responsiveness between SW and IT were calculated using Eq. 1 in Appendix S3. Average reductions in cold responsiveness due to CBF2 LOF were calculated as the average using Eqs. 2–5 in Appendix S3.

Alias	Gene	Difference in cold responsiveness between SW and IT (log2 fold‐change)	Average reduction in cold responsiveness due to CBF2 LOF (log2 fold‐change)	Difference between SW and IT explained by CBF2 (%)
GolS3	AT1G09350	2.53	2.16	86
n/a	AT4G30830	2.71	1.18	44
LEA14	AT1G01470	0.91	0.75	81
CCT2	AT4G15130	0.85	0.59	69
COR413‐PM1	AT2G15970	0.98	0.52	53
ERD10	AT1G20450	1.53	0.75	49
COR47	AT1G20440	1.79	0.63	35
ERD7	AT2G17840	1.51	0.51	34
n/a	AT3G55760	1.53	0.99	65
DEAR3	AT2G23340	0.86	0.73	84