Skip to main content

Table 3 Significant gene expression changes between sham and IUGR rats at 5, 20 and 40 dpp

From: Impact of uteroplacental insufficiency on ovarian follicular pool in the rat

Cluster Gene Sham vs IUGR
dpp 5 dpp 20 dpp 40
Proliferation Mki67    1.0 ± 0.3 vs 0.5 ± 0.2
Pcna    1.0 ± 0.1 vs 0.6 ± 0.2
Cdkn1b    1.0 ± 0.3 vs 0.7 ± 0.1
Top2a    1.0 ± 0.2 vs 0.4 ± 0.1
Tk1    1.1 ± 0.6 vs 0.4 ± 0.2
Apoptosis Casp9    1.0 ± 0.1 vs 0.8 ± 0.1
Energetics Cs    1.0 ± 0.2 vs 0.8 ± 0.1
Ldhb   1.0 ± 0.2 vs 1.3 ± 0.3  
Ldhc 1.0 ± 0.3 vs 0.6 ± 0.1   
Slc2a1    1.0 ± 0.3 vs 1.6 ± 0.5
Angiogenesis Tgfb1 1.0 ± 0.1 vs 0.7 ± 0.1   
Tgfb2   1.0 ± 0.3 vs 0.7 ± 0.3  
Angpt1   1.0 ± 0.1 vs 0.8 ± 0.3  
Pdgfra   1.0 ± 0.1 vs 1.4 ± 0.1  
Insulin/IGF pathways Igf1r   1.0 ± 0.3 vs 0.8 ± 0.1 1.0 ± 0.2 vs 0.8 ± 0.1
Igfbp3    1.0 ± 0.4 vs 3.0 ± 0.9
Germ cell markers Fgf4 1.1 ± 0.4 vs 0.6 ± 0.2   
Fgf5   1.5 ± 1.5 vs 0.2 ± 0.1  
Thy1 1.0 ± 0.3 vs 1.4 ± 0.2   
Zbtb16 1.1 ± 0.5 vs 0.5 ± 0.2   
GC markers Amh   1.0 ± 0.1 vs 0.8 ± 0.1  
Inhbb    1.0 ± 0.1 vs 0.5 ± 0.3
Gata6    1.0 ± 0.2 vs 0.7 ± 0.1
TC markers Insl3   1.1 ± 0.6 vs 3.0 ± 1.9  
  1. Values are expressed as means ± standard deviations of gene expression fold changes. Dpp, days post-partum; GC, granulosa cell; IGF, insulin growth factor; IUGR, intrauterine growth restricted; TC, theca cell. Student T-test, P < 0.05. For the list of gene names and abbreviation please refer to Table 2. At the age of 5 dpp, 6 IUGR versus 3 sham rats were included. At 20 and 40 dpp, 6 animals per group were included