Table 1 |
||||||
|
Quantitative analysis of GFP expression following heterozygous intercrosses |
||||||
| Percentage expressing cells |
Mean fluorescence |
|||||
|
|
|
|||||
| Mutant |
WT (n) |
Heterozygote (n) |
Homozygote (n) |
WT (n) |
Heterozygote (n) |
Homozygote (n) |
|
|
||||||
| MommeD7 |
55 ± 7 (7) |
80 ± 3* (13) |
NA |
286 ± 43 (7) |
700 ± 52* (13) |
NA |
| MommeD8 |
54 ± 4 (40) |
41 ± 4* (55) |
15 ± 4* (15) |
287 ± 25 (40) |
244 ± 28* (55) |
161 ± 27* (15) |
| MommeD9 |
59 ± 4 (8) |
39 ± 6* (13) |
NA |
326 ± 37 (8) |
228 ± 27* (13) |
NA |
| MommeD10 |
55 ± 4 (46) |
44 ± 3* (87) |
22 ± 2* (6) |
295 ± 33 (46) |
269 ± 26* (87) |
243 ± 19* (6) |
|
|
||||||
|
The percentage of expressing cells was determined by using a GFP+ gate, which was set to exclude 99.9% of wild-type (WT) cells. Data were collected from at least four litters in each case. The data for the MommeD9 colony were collected using a different laser. Each mutant line has a significantly different expression profile to that of wild-type littermates, reproducible over many generations. *p ≤ 0.0001. |
||||||
|
Ashe et al. Genome Biology 2008 9:R182 doi:10.1186/gb-2008-9-12-r182 |
||||||
