Skip to main content

Table 4 Bivariate analysis of virtually-multiplexed transcript abundance data values for each antioxidant or DNA repair gene versus each transcription factor.

From: CEBPG transcription factor correlates with antioxidant and DNA repair genes in normal bronchial epithelial cells but not in individuals with bronchogenic carcinoma

  Non-BC Individuals n = 24 BC Individuals n = 25 ALL n = 49
Antioxidant/DNA Repair Genes vs Transcription Factors r Value p Value r Value p Value r Value p Value
CAT vs CEBPB 0.13 1 0.18 1 0.15 1
CAT vs CEBPG 0.65 0.004 0.35 0.48 0.55 <0.0006
CAT vs E2F1* 0.54 0.04 0.68 0.002 0.56 <0.0006
CAT vs E2F3 0.48 0.12 0.18 1 0.37 0.06
CAT vs E2F6 0.26 1 0.3 0.84 0.25 0.48
CAT vs EVI1 -0.01 1 0.21 1 0.08 1
ERCC1 vs CEBPB 0.32 0.78 0.27 1 0.29 0.24
ERCC1 vs CEBPG 0.77 <0.0006 0.42 0.24 0.62 <0.0006
ERCC1 vs E2F1 0.35 0.54 0.39 0.36 0.37 0.06
ERCC1 vs E2F3 0.39 0.36 0.21 1 0.31 0.18
ERCC1 vs E2F6 0.17 1 0.63 0.005 0.42 0.02
ERCC1 vs EVI1 -0.02 1 0.38 0.36 0.17 1
ERCC2 vs CEBPB 0.25 1 0.19 1 0.22 0.84
ERCC2 vs CEBPG 0.63 0.006 0.39 0.3 0.53 <0.0006
ERCC2 vs E2F1 0.39 0.36 0.32 0.72 0.33 0.12
ERCC2 vs E2F3 0.58 0.02 0.22 1 0.42 0.02
ERCC2 vs E2F6 0.37 0.42 0.51 0.06 0.42 0.02
ERCC2 vs EVI1 0.19 1 0.29 0.96 0.23 0.66
ERCC4 vs CEBPB -0.35 0.6 -0.11 1 -0.16 1
ERCC4 vs CEBPG 0.24 1 0.37 0.42 0.25 0.48
ERCC4 vs E2F1 0.42 0.24 0.04 1 0.2 1
ERCC4 vs E2F3 0.6 0.01 0.33 0.6 0.33 0.12
ERCC4 vs E2F6 -0.04 1 0.04 1 0.07 1
ERCC4 vs EVI1 0.24 1 0.33 0.66 0.27 0.36
ERCC5 vs CEBPB 0.4 0.3 0.28 1 0.33 0.12
ERCC5 vs CEBPG 0.79 <0.0006 0.12 1 0.46 0.005
ERCC5 vs E2F1 0.44 0.18 0.45 0.18 0.44 0.01
ERCC5 vs E2F3 0.39 0.36 -0.11 1 0.13 1
ERCC5 vs E2F6 0.41 0.3 0.35 0.54 0.38 0.04
ERCC5 vs EVI1 0.07 1 -0.04 1 0.01 1
GPX1 vs CEBPB 0.49 0.06 0.24 1 0.32 0.12
GPX1 vs CEBPG 0.72 <0.0006 0.19 1 0.4 0.02
GPX1 vs E2F1 0.48 0.12 0.38 0.36 0.43 0.02
GPX1 vs E2F3 0.22 1 -0.004 1 0.08 1
GPX1 vs E2F6 0.06 1 0.36 0.48 0.28 0.3
GPX1 vs EVI1 -0.06 1 0.2 1 0.1 1
GPX3 vs CEBPB -0.18 1 0.14 1 0.02 1
GPX3 vs CEBPG 0.13 1 0.01 1 0.07 1
GPX3 vs E2F1 -0.03 1 -0.17 1 -0.12 1
GPX3 vs E2F3 0.32 0.78 -0.2 1 0.05 1
GPX3 vs E2F6 -0.26 1 0.44 0.18 0.19 1
GPX3 vs EVI1 0.06 1 0.08 1 0.06 1
GSTM1-5 vs CEBPB -0.08 1 0.43 0.18 0.17 1
GSTM1-5 vs CEBPG 0.25 1 0.02 1 0.16 1
GSTM1-5 vs E2F1 0.51 0.06 0.23 1 0.41 0.02
GSTM1-5 vs E2F3 0.29 0.96 -0.16 1 0.1 1
GSTM1-5 vs E2F6 -0.3 0.9 0.006 1 -0.1 1
GSTM1-5 vs EVI1 0.22 1 -0.12 1 0.07 1
GSTM3 vs CEBPB 0.01 1 0.06 1 0.04 1
GSTM3 vs CEBPG -0.007 1 -0.28 1 0.01 1
GSTM3 vs E2F1 0.29 1 0.35 0.54 0.34 0.12
GSTM3 vs E2F3 -0.31 0.84 -0.49 0.06 -0.4 0.03
GSTM3 vs E2F6 -0.11 1 -0.25 1 -0.16 1
GSTM3 vs EVI1 -0.27 1 -0.25 1 -0.25 0.54
GSTP1 vs CEBPB 0.19 1 0.38 0.36 0.28 0.36
GSTP1 vs CEBPG 0.74 <0.0006 0.18 1 0.51 0.001
GSTP1 vs E2F1 0.6 0.01 0.46 0.12 0.56 <0.0006
GSTP1 vs E2F3 0.32 0.78 -0.25 1 0.07 1
GSTP1 vs E2F6 0.1 1 0.35 0.48 0.26 0.42
GSTP1 vs EVI1 0.11 1 0.13 1 0.12 1
GSTT1 vs CEBPB 0.03 1 0.45 0.12 0.24 0.6
GSTT1 vs CEBPG 0.39 0.36 0.16 1 0.3 0.24
GSTT1 vs E2F1 0.07 1 -0.15 1 -0.05 1
GSTT1 vs E2F3 0.35 0.54 -0.1 1 0.17 1
GSTT1 vs E2F6 0.05 1 0.21 1 0.11 1
GSTT1 vs EVI1 -0.26 1 0.22 1 -0.04 1
GSTZ1 vs CEBPB 0.11 1 0.36 0.42 0.25 0.54
GSTZ1 vs CEBPG 0.51 0.06 0.08 1 0.28 0.3
GSTZ1 vs E2F1 0.64 0.004 0.5 0.06 0.58 <0.0006
GSTZ1 vs E2F3 0.42 0.24 0.14 1 0.25 0.54
GSTZ1 vs E2F6 -0.05 1 0.48 0.12 0.32 0.18
GSTZ1 vs EVI1 0.02 1 0.27 1 0.16 1
mGST vs CEBPB 0.31 0.78 0.35 0.48 0.32 0.12
mGST vs CEBPG 0.56 0.02 0.25 1 0.42 0.02
mGST vs E2F1 0.58 0.02 0.54 0.04 0.58 <0.0006
mGST vs E2F3 0.03 1 -0.15 1 -0.06 1
mGST vs E2F6 0.17 1 0.29 0.96 0.27 0.36
mGST vs EVI1 -0.16 1 0.07 1 -0.04 1
SOD1 vs CEBPB 0.13 1 0.15 1 0.14 1
SOD1 vs CEBPG 0.66 0.002 0.009 1 0.36 0.06
SOD1 vs E2F1 0.59 0.02 0.55 0.04 0.56 <0.0006
SOD1 vs E2F3 0.25 1 -0.07 1 0.09 1
SOD1 vs E2F6 0.12 1 0.14 1 0.14 1
SOD1 vs EVI1 -0.17 1 0.03 1 -0.06 1
XPA vs CEBPB 0.31 0.84 0.42 0.24 0.31 0.18
XPA vs CEBPG 0.36 0.54 0.33 0.66 0.34 0.12
XPA vs E2F1 -0.05 1 0.22 1 -0.02 1
XPA vs E2F3 -0.07 1 0.14 1 -0.01 1
XPA vs E2F6 0.55 0.04 0.46 0.12 0.4 0.02
XPA vs EVI1 0.04 1 0.07 1 0.04 1
XRCC1 vs CEBPB 0.36 0.48 0.28 1 0.32 0.18
XRCC1 vs CEBPG 0.83 <0.0006 0.27 1 0.591 <0.0006
XRCC1 vs E2F1 0.32 0.78 0.37 0.48 0.35 0.12
XRCC1 vs E2F3 0.47 0.12 0.22 1 0.35 0.06
XRCC1 vs E2F6 0.26 1 0.54 0.04 0.41 0.02
XRCC1 vs EVI1 -0.009 1 0.12 1 0.06 1
  1. The correlation of logarithmically transformed virtually-multiplexed transcript abundance data (Table 3) from each of the six transcription factors with each of the sixteen antioxidant or DNA repair genes was determined. The transformation was necessary due to the wide range of expression of each gene among the samples. The correlation coefficient (r value) and level of significance (p value) for each correlation are presented. Significance (p < 0.01) was determined using a two-tailed test following Bonferroni adjustment for six multiple comparisons (comparison of each of six transcription factors to each of the antioxidant or DNA repair genes).
  2. *values for E2F1 obtained in all but one BC individuals.
\