Additional file 1: Table S1. Primers used in the RT-qPCR validation of
the microarray data. The putative identities assigned to each transcript
are listed in the ‘Gene’ column.
Additional file 2: Table S2. RT-qPCR validation of microarray data.
Representative arrays chosen for microarray validation. Five transcripts
were selected to ensure the microarray data was comparable with other
expression profiling methods. Values indicate fold-changes in gene
expression.‹
Additional file 3: Table S3. Avocado transcripts found to be
up-regulated in the infected treatment (I) compared to the control
treatment (C) at 48 h-post flooding (8 days post-infection).
Additional file 4: Figure S1. Comparison of the repressed avocado
transcripts in flooded to non-flooded treatments at 22 h post-flooding
(A) and 48 h post-flooding (B). Values for transcripts with more than one
probe present on the array were first averaged and then subjected to the
thresholds to determine differential expression.
Additional file 5: Figure S2. Differential GO-term distribution after
enrichment analysis for sequences up-regulated in the 22HF vs. 22HI
comparison. The percentages of sequences associated with GO terms
showing over-representation in the 22HF vs. 22HI comparison compared
to the reference set consisting of all sequences on the array (FDR < 0.05).
Only transcripts showing significant differential expression (log2FC > 1,
adj. P-value < 0.05) were included in the analysis.
Additional file 6: Figure S3. Differential GO-term distribution after
enrichment analysis for sequences up-regulated in the 48HFI vs. 48HC
comparison. The percentages of sequences associated with GO terms
showing over-representation in the 48HFI vs. 48HC comparison compared
to the reference set consisting of all sequences on the array (FDR < 0.05).
Only transcripts showing significant differential expression (log2FC > 1, adj.
P-value < 0.05) were included in the analysis.};})()