Search alternatives:
significant male » significant main (Expand Search), significant cause (Expand Search), significant based (Expand Search)
non decrease » point decrease (Expand Search), note decreased (Expand Search), fold decrease (Expand Search)
nn decrease » _ decrease (Expand Search), a decrease (Expand Search), mean decrease (Expand Search)
significant male » significant main (Expand Search), significant cause (Expand Search), significant based (Expand Search)
non decrease » point decrease (Expand Search), note decreased (Expand Search), fold decrease (Expand Search)
nn decrease » _ decrease (Expand Search), a decrease (Expand Search), mean decrease (Expand Search)
-
101
S2 Table -
Published 2020“…</b> Shown are 1,131 liver-expressed genes (FPKM >1) that showed a significant sex-bias in expression (EdgeR adjusted p-value < 0.01) in control (floxed) mouse liver. …”
-
102
-
103
-
104
-
105
-
106
S10 Table -
Published 2020“…Enrichments were also calculated separately for all sex-biased genes, for female-biased genes, and for male-biased genes (first, middle, and last segments of (II)). …”
-
107
Loss of Ezh1 and Ezh2 partially feminizes the expression of GH-responsive genes.
Published 2020“…Median value, horizontal line in each box; mean value, + sign within or above each box. Statistical significance by ANOVA: *, p < 0.05. (<b>E</b>) Graph, in the form of an MA plot, showing log2 (male/female ratio) vs. gene expression level, in log2 FPKM units, for the above set of 113 female-biased genes. …”
-
108
Normalization of H3K27me3 ChIP-seq datasets.
Published 2020“…<p>(<b>A</b>) UCSC Browser screenshots showing loss of H3K27me3 sequence reads across the gene bodies of four female-biased genes. The male-bias in H3K27me3 read density in control liver (first vs. third track) but not in E1/E2-KO liver (DKO; second vs. fourth track) is also apparent. …”
-
109
-
110
-
111
Participant demographic characteristics by experimental condition in Study 2.
Published 2022Subjects: -
112
-
113
-
114
-
115
-
116
-
117
Mixed ANOVA models for candidate ratings following online perspective taking.
Published 2022Subjects: -
118
-
119
-
120