Table 3 |
|||
|
Cellular Stress Network coverage statistics for the test data set comparisons based on GSE18344 data |
|||
|
Comparison |
WT 1d vs sham |
Nrf2 KO 1d vs sham |
Nrf2 KO 1d vs WT 1d |
|
|
|||
|
State Changes (SCs) |
81 |
113 |
45 |
|
|
|||
|
Significant Cellular Stress Network Hypotheses |
39 |
47 |
23 |
|
|
|||
|
SCs Explained by Network |
67/81 (83%) |
75/113 (66%) |
40/45 (89%) |
|
|
|||
|
SCs Explained by Nfe2l2 |
29/81 (36%) |
20/113 (18%) |
31/45 (69%) |
|
|
|||
|
SCs Explained by Nfe2l2 or Keap1 |
37/81 (46%) |
27/113 (24%) |
36/45 (80%) |
|
|
|||
|
SCs = mRNA State Changes; hypotheses - network model nodes predicted to have significantly increased or decreased activity by Reverse Causal Reasoning (RCR) on the SCs for each test data set comparison. |
|||
|
Schlage et al. BMC Systems Biology 2011 5:168 doi:10.1186/1752-0509-5-168 |
|||