Genome-wide expression profile of the response to spinal cord injury in Xenopus laevis reveals extensive differences between regenerative and non-regenerative stages

Table 1 Top 10 differentially regulated transcripts 1 day post transection

GenBank ID	Gene name	UniGene cluster description	log₂FC		FC ratio
			R1	NR1	FC ratio
BC070531	MGC78829	Hypothetical protein MGC78829	-1.06	4.15	36.92
BC129680	sds	Serine dehydratase	-3.27	1.92	36.51
BC076749	stc1	Stanniocalcin 1	5.07	0.31	27.06
BC129695	LOC100036942	Hypothetical protein LOC100036942	-2.20	1.63	14.18
NM_001092398	glul-a	Glutamate-ammonia ligase	-2.28	1.51	13.76
BC073470	glul-b	Glutamate-ammonia ligase	-1.98	1.61	12.09
BC070543	aqp3-a	Aquaporin 3 (Gill blood group)	3.99	0.49	11.29
BC084414	bhmt	Betaine-homocysteine S-methyltransferase	-0.98	2.37	10.20
BC041489	Unknown	Xenopus laevis, clone IMAGE:4930284, mRNA	-1.48	1.26	6.70
BC044682	ucp2	Uncoupling protein 2 (mitochondrial, proton carrier)	-0.80	1.94	6.69

Top 10 transcripts that, in addition to being differentially expressed after injury, show a different response when comparing regenerative and non-regenerative stages. Selection criteria: P < 0.01; sum of reads (transected + sham) higher or equal to the mean value of all transcripts. FC ratio: ratio between FC(R)/FC(NR) or FC(NR)/FC(R) (see Figure 2b for selection criteria). FC, fold change (transected/sham).

ISSN: 1749-8104