Table 4. Results of permutational multivariate analysis of variance (Adonis) and analysis of similarity (ANOSIM) based on unweighted and weighted Unifrac distance matrices, using abundance data of faecal bacterial communities at genus level.
Adonis | Unweighted | Weighted | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
p-value | R2 | p-value | R2 | |
CTRL vs GMOS | 0.088 | 0.19 | 0.251 | 0.12 |
CTRL vs GMOSPHYTO | 0.003 | 0.22 | 0.026 | 0.36 |
CTRL vs PHYTO | 0.004 | 0.30 | 0.131 | 0.18 |
GMOS vs GMOSPHYTO | 0.048 | 0.20 | 0.006 | 0.68 |
GMOS vs PHYTO | 0.009 | 0.26 | 0.014 | 0.41 |
GMOSPHYTO vs PHYTO | 0.010 | 0.21 | 0.567 | 0.05 |
CTRL vs diet CTRL | 0.005 | 0.48 | 0.060 | 0.24 |
GMOS vs diet GMOS | 0.030 | 0.40 | 0.010 | 0.44 |
GMOSPHYTO vs diet GMOSPHYTO | 0.007 | 0.48 | 0.003 | 0.87 |
PHYTO vs diet PHYTO | 0.006 | 0.39 | 0.009 | 0.56 |
ANOSIM | ||||
p-value | R | p-value | R | |
CTRL vs GMOS | 0.115 | 0.19 | 0.193 | 0.08 |
CTRL vs GMOSPHYTO | 0.005 | 0.31 | 0.028 | 0.38 |
CTRL vs PHYTO | 0.005 | 0.51 | 0.166 | 0.09 |
GMOS vs GMOSPHYTO | 0.051 | 0.28 | 0.007 | 0.72 |
GMOS vs PHYTO | 0.005 | 0.47 | 0.018 | 0.47 |
GMOSPHYTO vs PHYTO | 0.004 | 0.39 | 0.260 | 0.03 |
CTRL vs diet CTRL | 0.007 | 0.83 | 0.082 | 0.24 |
GMOS vs diet GMOS | 0.028 | 0.45 | 0.018 | 0.53 |
GMOSPHYTO vs diet GMOSPHYTO | 0.002 | 0.71 | 0.008 | 1.00 |
PHYTO vs diet PHYTO | 0.009 | 0.50 | 0.045 | 0.47 |
Significant p-values are presented in bold.