Exact(1)
Overall, the nature of the differences among the reversion lines remains obscure.
Similar(59)
Survivorships were homogenous among the four reversion lines (P=0.1198, Kruskal-Wallis test).
Survivorships of the four reversion lines were homogenous (P=0.1962, Kruskal-Wallis test).
A significantly decreased lifespan was detected in mated mutant females compared to control females and females of the four reversion lines (Table 1, Figure 3A).
Under the null hypothesis that reversion lines did not experience any loss of fitness on the novel host after reversion, the slope of the curve linking performance at the time of reversion to performance at the time of the assay, should not significantly differ between control lines and reversion lines.
The lifespan of males in two of four reversion lines, rev1 and rev3, was significantly different from the lifespan of mutant males (Table 1, Figure 2E) and control males according to the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (P = 0.0063 for rev1; P = 0.0243 for rev3).
We assessed the effect of the stc KG01230 mutation on lifespan relative to control and reversion lines in unmated and mated females and males.
Survivorships of all reversion lines were not different from survivorship of the control line (P=0.2542, P=0.3366, P=0.6245, P=0.4784, respectively, Kruskal-Wallis test), consequently, survivorships were homogenous among all five lines (P=0.2110, Kruskal-Wallis test).
To verify these results, the experiment was repeated and the lifespan of mutant females was again shown to be significantly lower than the lifespan of control females and females of all four reversion lines (Table 1, Figures 3B, 3C).
In the second and third experiments, the lifespan of mutant females was significantly higher than the lifespan of control females and females of all four reversion lines (Table 1, Figures 2B, 2C).
Second, these authors created reversion lines, that is, lines that evolved first on a novel host and subsequently evolved on the ancestral host again.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com