showed a trendP ≤0.06
The Robo2 increase was significant ( P ≤0.05, t -test; n =8 LgDel , 12 WT), whereas that for L1Cam showed a trend ( P ≤0.06, t -test).
The Robo2 increase was significant ( P ≤0.05, t -test; n =8 LgDel , 12 WT), whereas that for L1Cam showed a trend ( P ≤0.06, t -test).
Expression of L1Cam , modestly increased in LgDel CNg V (with a significant trend; see Fig. 5 ), did not differ in Tbx1 +/− versus WT; however, Robo2 was significantly reduced (34%; P <0.05; Fig. 7 ), opposite to the 36% increase in LgDel ( Fig. 4 ).