Effects of mouse cage on gut bacterial composition
| Component | Cumulative % explained | p Value | Multiple testing correction |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 16.89 | 0.10 | 0.22 |
| 2 | 29.38 | 1.57E-06 | 2.35E-05 |
| 3 | 36.01 | 2.49E-05 | 1.87E-04 |
| 4 | 40.87 | 4.83E-05 | 2.41E-04 |
| 5 | 45.47 | 0.15 | 0.29 |
| 6 | 50.00 | 1.98E-04 | 7.42E-04 |
| 7 | 54.07 | 0.15 | 0.26 |
| 8 | 57.98 | 0.0012 | 0.0035 |
| 9 | 61.16 | 0.84 | 0.90 |
| 10 | 64.19 | 0.61 | 0.76 |
| 11 | 67.05 | 0.23 | 0.33 |
| 12 | 69.87 | 0.28 | 0.39 |
| 13 | 72.40 | 0.63 | 0.73 |
| 14 | 74.84 | 0.91 | 0.91 |
| 15 | 77.04 | 0.02 | 0.06 |
p Values are calculated using a one-way analysis of variance in which the null hypothesis is that cage has no effect on the distribution of the coordinate. The results for the first 15 coordinates of the Bray–Curtis analysis shown in figure 5 are depicted. Only cages that had at least three animals were included in the analysis (n=7 cages). The ‘Multiple Testing Correction’ column shows correction for multiple hypothesis testing (in this case testing 15 coordinates) using the Benjamini and Hochberg procedure. For coordinates reaching statistical significance by multiple testing (p<0.05), the null hypothesis is rejected, indicating that the mouse cage appears to have an effect on gut bacterial composition.