Table 1.

Overview of the immunolabelling results using the LM1, JIM11, JIM12 and JIM20 anti-extensin monoclonal antibodies on Flg22-elicited and non-elicited mutants and WT roots.

This summary is based on the results presented in Castilleux et al. (2020). The root fluorescence area was measured on the micrographs, after setting a certain intensity threshold defined according to the non-elicited wild-type condition and specific for each antibody. The fluorescence area was then related to the total root area observed in the micrographs to calculate the corresponding ratio (%) displayed here. Detailed graphs and statistical analyses are presented in figures S6–S9 of our previous paper (Castilleux et al., 2020).

The conclusions regarding the response to Flg22-elicitation are based on these statistical analyses. Each difference stated here is significant according to a Tukey’s multiple comparisons test at α = 5%, and with a P-value < 0.05. The terms ‘Similar signal’ and ‘No change of signal’ both mean that no significant difference was observed between non-elicited and elicited conditions. However, the term ‘No change in signal’ was specifically used for the mutants when the absence of differences between non-elicited and elicited conditions actually constituted a differential response to elicitation in comparison to WT.

Flg22: flagellin 22