TBDB
WORLD Sign In Sign Out
Feedback

Samples and Conditions with significant expression of RV0749A : hypothetical protein

Hide/Show Experimental Conditions

Click on an area of interest to select experiments. Drag to expand selection area.

Histogram x-axis:

check all - uncheck all - check all positive - check all negative - Reset Display
P-Value for Experimental Condition: <=1e-10 1e-10 to 1e-8 1e-8 to 1e-6 1e-6 to 1e-4 1e-4 to 1e-2 >0.01

raw pcl GP cluster Download Table

Sample Name Experimental
Condition
Expression Value Intensity Significance Publication
H37Rv cDNA Cy3 vs H37Rv gDNA Cy5 (DS) rep 1Control cDNA vs gDNA-1.215.700.01Andreu N and Gibert I (2008)
H37Rv cDNA Cy3 vs H37Rv gDNA Cy5 (DS) rep 2Control cDNA vs gDNA-2.853.760.36Andreu N and Gibert I (2008)
H37Rv cDNA Cy3 vs H37Rv gDNA Cy5 (DS) rep 3Control cDNA vs gDNA-2.335.060.46Andreu N and Gibert I (2008)
H37Rv cDNA Cy5 vs H37Rv gDNA Cy3 rep 1Control cDNA vs gDNA3.959.230.93Andreu N and Gibert I (2008)
H37Rv cDNA Cy5 vs H37Rv gDNA Cy3 rep 2Control cDNA vs gDNA5.059.422.03Andreu N and Gibert I (2008)
H37Rv cDNA Cy5 vs H37Rv gDNA Cy3 rep 3Control cDNA vs gDNA3.199.090.26Andreu N and Gibert I (2008)
Strain 27 cDNA Cy3 vs H37Rv gDNA Cy5 (DS) rep 1Strain comparison-2.444.500.28Andreu N and Gibert I (2008)
Strain 27 cDNA Cy3 vs H37Rv gDNA Cy5 (DS) rep 2Strain comparison-2.874.460.30Andreu N and Gibert I (2008)
Strain 27 cDNA Cy5 vs H37Rv gDNA Cy3 rep 1Strain comparison2.459.200.60Andreu N and Gibert I (2008)
Strain 27 cDNA Cy5 vs H37Rv gDNA Cy3 rep 2Strain comparison2.948.200.47Andreu N and Gibert I (2008)
Strain 32 cDNA Cy3 vs H37Rv gDNA Cy5 (DS) rep 1Strain comparison-4.422.870.64Andreu N and Gibert I (2008)
Strain 32 cDNA Cy3 vs H37Rv gDNA Cy5 (DS) rep 2Strain comparison-2.314.910.01Andreu N and Gibert I (2008)
Strain 32 cDNA Cy5 vs H37Rv gDNA Cy3 rep 1Strain comparison3.139.210.95Andreu N and Gibert I (2008)
Strain 32 cDNA Cy5 vs H37Rv gDNA Cy3 rep 2Strain comparison1.588.870.69Andreu N and Gibert I (2008)
Strain 32 cDNA Cy5 vs H37Rv gDNA Cy3 rep 3Strain comparison5.779.901.77Andreu N and Gibert I (2008)
Strain 49 cDNA Cy3 vs H37Rv gDNA Cy5 (DS) rep 1Strain comparison5.458.081.82Andreu N and Gibert I (2008)
Strain 49 cDNA Cy3 vs H37Rv gDNA Cy5 (DS) rep 2Strain comparison-5.893.180.79Andreu N and Gibert I (2008)
Strain 49 cDNA Cy3 vs H37Rv gDNA Cy5 (DS) rep 3Strain comparison-5.472.730.72Andreu N and Gibert I (2008)
Strain 49 cDNA Cy5 vs H37Rv gDNA Cy3 rep 1Strain comparison4.879.431.34Andreu N and Gibert I (2008)
Strain 49 cDNA Cy5 vs H37Rv gDNA Cy3 rep 2Strain comparison-5.793.290.16Andreu N and Gibert I (2008)
Strain 49 cDNA Cy5 vs H37Rv gDNA Cy3 rep 3Strain comparison-6.473.100.13Andreu N and Gibert I (2008)
H37Rv wild type Cy3 vs Rv0485 Tn mutant Cy5 rep 1Wild type vs Mutant-0.236.890.09Goldstone RM, et al. (2009)
H37Rv wild type Cy3 vs Rv0485 Tn mutant Cy5 rep 2Wild type vs Mutant0.267.470.18Goldstone RM, et al. (2009)
H37Rv wild type Cy3 vs Rv0485 Tn mutant Cy5 rep 3Wild type vs Mutant1.096.131.01Goldstone RM, et al. (2009)
H37Rv wild type Cy5 vs Rv0485 Tn mutant Cy3 (DS) rep 1Wild type vs Mutant0.457.330.42Goldstone RM, et al. (2009)
H37Rv wild type Cy5 vs Rv0485 Tn mutant Cy3 (DS) rep 2Wild type vs Mutant0.887.010.70Goldstone RM, et al. (2009)
H37Rv wild type Cy5 vs Rv0485 Tn mutant Cy3 (DS) rep 3Wild type vs Mutant-0.315.830.18Goldstone RM, et al. (2009)