Table 1.
Expression pattern | ST3–ST4 | ST5 | ST6–ST7 | P-value | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
No difference | 15 632 (70.5 %) | 15 067 (68.0 %) | 14 792 (66.7 %) | <2.2 × 10–16 | |
Additive | 402 (1.8 %) | 441 (2.0 %) | 443 (2.1 %) | 0.2805 | |
Transgressive up | 939 (4.2 %) | 854 (3.9 %) | 900 (4.1 %) | 0.1222 | |
Transgressive down | 563 (2.6 %) | 635 (2.8 %) | 546 (2.5 %) | 0.0198 | |
E dominant up | 1048 (4.7 %) | 905 (4.1 %) | 921 (4.2 %) | 0.0012 | |
E dominant down | 1234 (5.6 %) | 1480 (6.7 %) | 1679 (7.5 %) | <2.2 × 10–16 | |
C dominant up | 1308 (5.9 %) | 1110 (5.0 %) | 1540 (6.9 %) | <2.2 × 10–16 | |
C dominant down | 1039 (4.7 %) | 1673 (7.5 %) | 1344 (6.1 %) | <2.2 × 10–16 |
A, C and E correspond to C. arabica, C. canephora and C. eugenioides, respectively. Differential gene expression between the three species is indicated by the dashed-dotted lines for each gene expression category (gene expression in C. arabica deviated >1.25-fold from that of either parental species). The proportions of each category were compared between maturation stages (prop.test, 0.01 as the significance threshold P-value).