Skip to main content
. 2020 Sep 22;41(6):1398–1416. doi: 10.1177/0271678X20953912

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Molecular signatures for ICH versus VRFC in the sample types analyzed. (a) Venn diagram of the numbers of DEGs in monocytes (green), neutrophils (orange), and whole blood (brown); (b) principal component analyses (PCA) using the DEGs in ICH-monocytes versus VRFC-monocytes (left PCA) and ICH-neutrophils versus VRFC-neutrophils (right PCA); (c) Venn diagram of the numbers of over-represented significant canonical pathways (p < 0.05) for ICH; (d) common pathways in all three sample types – monocytes, neutrophils, and whole blood. The asterisk depicts significant pathways that passed additional stringency criteria (Benjamini–Hochberg corrected p-value < 0.05). In the plot, orange cells indicate predicted activation of the pathway, blue ones show predicted inhibition, grey cells – no prediction can be performed, and white depicts no direction can be inferred. The shades for every colored cell represent z-scores values. Arrows represent the direction of the change for significant activation (Z  ≥  2= activation, up arrow); or significant inhibition (Z ≤ −2, down arrow). Top enriched pathways are shown for monocytes (e) and neutrophils (f). Role of pattern recognition receptors in recognition of bacteria and viruses is abbreviated.