MOESM1 of Transcriptome resilience predicts thermotolerance in Caenorhabditis elegans

Additional file 1: Table S1. Overview of microarray samples used in this study. Includes detailed information on the treatment conditions, previous publications, ArrayExpress accession numbers, and whether they were used for deriving the different axes (H, GH, D, GD). Table S2. Top 5% of genes contributing to the different axes. Table S3. Full output of the enrichment analysis using the webtool DAVID 6.8. Enrichment categories (using standard settings) include: Functional Categories (COG_Ontology, UP_keywords, Up_seq_feature), Gene_ontology (goterm_bp_direct, goterm_cc_direct, goterm_mf_direct), Pathways (KEGG_pathway), Protein_domains (Interpro, Pir_superfamiy, smart). Table S4. Additional enrichment output. The following resources were used: WormBase (https://wormbase.org/) version WS258 gene class names, anatomy terms, phenotypes, RNAi phenotypes, developmental stage expression, and disease-related genes, and the ModERN resource transcription-factor binding sites (http://epic.gs.washington.edu/modERN/). Table S5. Lifespan data. Columns X1-X51 gives the accumulative number of dead worms on day 1-51 post age-synchronization. Each row represents a different genotype. Control conditions are continuous 20°C; heat-stress animals were exposed to 35°C for 4h starting 46h after age-synchronization, after which they were returned to 20°C. Table S6. Lifespan statistics. Output of logrank test comparing lifespan in control conditions and after heat-stress. Tests were performed using the R package “survival” (vs. 2.42-6). The table also includes the FDR-adjusted p-values.