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

Table 2 Top 10 differentially regulated transcripts 2 days post transection

GenBank ID	Gene name	UniGene cluster description	log₂FC		FC ratio
GenBank ID			R2	NR2	FC ratio
BC078115	hsp70	Heat shock 70 kDa protein	-0.65	4.22	29.26
BC070531	MGC78829	Hypothetical protein MGC78829	-2.22	2.51	26.66
BC068675	cnfn-a	Cornifelin	-1.81	2.85	25.19
BC141766	LOC100049771	Hypothetical protein LOC100049771	1.39	5.32	15.26
BC157718	cfos-A	C-fos proto-oncogene	-1.88	1.73	12.19
BC129680	sds	Serine dehydratase	-1.72	1.73	10.93
BC084644	hla-dqa1	Major histocompatibility complex, class II, DQ alpha 1	-2.52	0.68	9.21
BC167488	LOC495461	Hypothetical LOC495461	-2.01	1.16	8.99
BC044682	ucp2	Uncoupling protein 2 (mitochondrial, proton carrier)	-1.00	2.07	8.44
AB075925	olfm4	Olfactomedin 4	-0.35	2.32	6.36

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