Table 2.
Rank order of ETI responses in A. thaliana, B. napus, and C. sativa.
| Effector | Rank order of ETI responses based on delta log cfu/cm2 values relative to EVa | Delta log cfu/cm2 relative to EV | Significanceb | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| At | Cs | Bn | At | Cs | Bn | At vs. Cs | At vs. Bn | |
| AvrB1b | 4 | 12 | 17 | 2.20 | 1.19 | − 0.010 | * | *** |
| AvrE1a | 11 | 16 | 10 | 1.43 | 0.835 | 1.03 | * | *** |
| AvrRpm1d | 7 | 14 | 16 | 1.96 | 1.05 | 0.143 | ** | *** |
| AvrRpt2b | 5 | 8 | 2 | 2.17 | 1.58 | 2.87 | ||
| HopA1j | 2 | 1 | 13 | 2.48 | 2.86 | 0.762 | *** | |
| HopAA1q | 15 | 13 | 8 | 0.873 | 1.05 | 1.64 | ||
| HopAR1h | 6 | 11 | 7 | 2.09 | 1.29 | 1.91 | * | *** |
| HopAX1f. | 16 | 15 | 11 | 0.755 | 0.861 | 0.991 | ||
| HopAZ1s | 19 | 18 | 6 | 0.496 | 0.600 | 1.96 | ||
| HopB1d | 8 | 6 | 14 | 1.94 | 1.73 | 0.520 | *** | |
| HopBA1a | 17 | 4 | 1 | 0.604 | 2.22 | 2.93 | *** | *** |
| HopBJ1b | 3 | 5 | 5 | 2.32 | 1.86 | 2.20 | ** | |
| HopD1d | 18 | 17 | 9 | 0.550 | 0.682 | 1.21 | ||
| HopF1r | 14 | 19 | 18 | 0.987 | 0.419 | − 0.044 | ** | *** |
| HopI1k | 12 | 7 | 3 | 1.38 | 1.71 | 2.64 | ||
| HopK1a | 10 | 3 | 19 | 1.48 | 2.26 | − 0.066 | *** | |
| HopO1c | 1 | 10 | 12 | 2.80 | 1.37 | 0.763 | *** | *** |
| HopX1i | 13 | 9 | 4 | 1.36 | 1.58 | 2.42 | ||
| HopZ1a | 9 | 2 | 15 | 1.93 | 2.52 | 0.511 | *** | |
At = A. thaliana, Cs = C. sativa, and Bn = B. napus.
aRank order is based on normalized bacterial growth assay data presented in Fig. 2, with rank 1 being the strongest ETI response (largest reduction in bacterial growth) and rank 19 being the weakest ETI response (smallest reduction in bacterial growth).
bSignificance is based on T-tests comparing normalized growth between A. thaliana and C. sativa and between A. thaliana and B. napus. T-test p-values were Bonferroni corrected for 19 × 2 = 38 tests. Bonferroni corrected p-values are indicated by 0.05 > * > 0.01 > ** > 0.001 > ***.