TABLE 2.
Effects of LPS and IGF‐1 on inflammatory gene expression of male and female mouse astrocytes
| Gene | Gene fold changes | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2‐way ANOVA | Male | Female | |||||||||
| Sex | Treatment | Interaction sex*treatment | Control | IGF‐1 | LPS | LPS + IGF‐1 | Control | IGF‐1 | LPS | LPS + IGF‐1 | |
| TLR2 | F(1, 53) = 0.96 p = .3298 | F(3, 53) = 76.68 p < .0001 | F(3, 53) = 0.32 p = .8082 | 1.00 ± 0.14 | 0.78 ± 0.12 | 37.12 ± 3.01 | 33.01 ± 4.38 | 1.33 ± 0.19 | 0.49 ± 0.04 | 42.29 ± 2.51 | 37.30 ± 6.17 |
| TLR4 | F(1, 55) = 3.34 p = .0730 | F(3, 55) = 64.23 p < .0001 | F(3, 55) = 0.71 p = .5469 | 0.98 ± 0.11 | 0.60 ± 0.06 | 3.10 ± 0.29 | 1.46 ± 0.19 | 1.03 ± 0.13 | 0.68 ± 0.07 | 3.68 ± 0.32 | 1.83 ± 0.29 |
| iNOS | F(1, 44) = 10.02 p = .0028 | F(3, 44) = 72.66 p < .0001 | F(3, 44) = 3.46 p = .0240 | 1.00 ± 0.60 | 1.56 ± 0.27 | 83.19 ± 3.81 | 100.98 ± 11.60 | 0.98 ± 0.48 | 1.52 ± 0.22 | 138.20 ± 11.61 | 147.71 ± 24.55 |
| IP‐10 | F(1, 41) = 1.94 p = .1703 | F(3, 41) = 14.61 p < .0001 | F(3, 41) = 0.94 p = .4274 | 1.00 ± 0.46 | 2.05 ± 0.31 | 148.35 ± 57.20 | 122.93 ± 43.14 | 1.04 ± 0.57 | 2.22 ± 0.18 | 79.33 ± 25.06 | 97.60 ± 27.22 |
| IL‐1β | F(1, 45) = 0.66 p = .4209 | F(3, 45) = 24.11 p < .0001 | F(3, 45) = 0.49 p = .6902 | 1.00 ± 0.39 | 1.20 ± 0.31 | 189.45 ± 22.42 | 93.01 ± 11.77 | 1.02 ± 0.34 | 0.96 ± 0.22 | 196.44 ± 53.80 | 148.10 ± 43.55 |
| IL‐6 | F(1, 46) = 5.13 p = .0282 | F(3, 46) = 25.32 p < .0001 | F(3, 46) = 1.77 p = .1659 | 1.00 ± 0.43 | 0.94 ± 0.14 | 114.74 ± 10.69 | 78.43 ± 10.38 | 1.08 ± 0.32 | 1.04 ± 0.23 | 191.93 ± 36.41 | 142.013 ± 32.95 |
| IL‐10 | F(1, 51) = 8.10 p = .0063 | F(3, 51) = 17.37 p < .0001 | F(3, 51) = 2.85 p = .0464 | 1.00 ± 0.25 | 0.90 ± 0.16 | 8.32 ± 1.63 | 2.11 ± 0.40 | 1.01 ± 0.19 | 0.73 ± 0.06 | 15.21 ± 3.03 | 9.67 ± 3.09 |
Note: Table shows how treatments (IGF‐1, LPS, or LPS + IGF‐1) affects gene expression in male and female astrocytes. The average of the male control group was considered the control mean value. Each individual sample's fold change was compared to the control mean. Fold changes are presented in table as mean values of all samples in each group ± SEM. Statistical significance analysis was assessed by using two‐way ANOVA, followed by Tukey's multiple comparisons post hoc test. A value of p < .05 was considered significant, In bold: statistically significant.