Figure - PMC

Skip to main content

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

View full-text article in PMC

. 2022 Feb 1;12:50. doi: 10.1038/s41398-022-01794-4

Search in PMC
Search in PubMed
View in NLM Catalog
Add to search

© This is a U.S. government work and not under copyright protection in the U.S.; foreign copyright protection may apply 2022

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

PMC Copyright notice

Fig. 4 — IL-23. Two-way ANOVA, genotype X treatment interaction (F (1, 23) = 0.06640, p = 0.7989, n = 6–7); Tukey’s multiple comparisons; ^$$p = 0.0056 vs no-shock WT, ^##p = 0.0094 vs shock WT. IL-1α. Two-way ANOVA, genotype X treatment interaction (F (1, 23) = 0.2762, p = 0.6043, n = 6–7); Tukey’s multiple comparisons- no significant difference between the groups. IFN-γ. Two-way ANOVA, genotype X treatment interaction (F (1, 23) = 2.744, p = 0.1112, n = 6–7); Tukey’s multiple comparisons; ^$$$$p < 0.0001 vs no-shock WT, ^##p = 0.0081 shock WT. TNF-α. Two-way ANOVA, genotype X treatment interaction (F (1, 23) = 0.2117, p = 0.6497, n = 6–7); Tukey’s multiple comparisons; ^$$$p = 0.0002 vs no-shock WT, ^###p = 0.0005 shock WT. MCP-1. Two-way ANOVA, genotype X treatment interaction (F (1, 20) = 0.4140, p = 0.5273, n = 5–7); Tukey’s multiple comparisons; ^$$$p = 0.0010 vs no-shock WT, ^#p = 0.0165 vs shock WT. IL-12p70. Two-way ANOVA, genotype X treatment interaction (F (1, 23) = 1.207, p = 0.2833, n = 6–7); Tukey’s multiple comparisons; ^$$p = 0.0013 vs no-shock WT, ^#p = 0.0342 vs shock WT. IL-1β. Two-way ANOVA, genotype X treatment interaction (F (1, 23) = 0.5080, p = 0.4832, n = 6–7); Tukey’s multiple comparisons—no significant difference between the groups. IL-17α. Two-way ANOVA, genotype X treatment interaction (F (1, 23) = 0.0573, p = 0.8128, n = 6–7); Tukey’s multiple comparisons; ^$$p = 0.0053 vs no-shock WT, ^##p = 0.0016 vs shock WT. GM-CSF. Two-way ANOVA, genotype X treatment interaction (F (1, 23) = 1.087, p = 0.3079, n = 6–7); Tukey’s multiple comparisons; ^$$$p = 0.0009 vs no-shock WT, ^#p = 0.0206 vs shock WT. IL-27. Two-way ANOVA, genotype X treatment interaction (F (1, 24) = 0.5738, p = 0.4561, n = 7); Tukey’s multiple comparisons; ^$$$$p < 0.0001 vs no-shock WT, ^####p < 0.0001 vs shock WT. INF-β. Two-way ANOVA, genotype X treatment interaction (F (1, 24) = 1.407, p = 0.2472, n = 6–7); Tukey’s multiple comparisons; ^$p = 0.0114 vs no-shock WT. Data are shown as mean ± SEM.