Figure 8
Normalized CAM ER density across subgroups. ROIs are defined by various CAM thresholds. For a given ROI, ER density is defined as total ERmoxGFP intensity within the ROI divided by ERMoxGFP area inside the ROI. ER density for each ROI defined by the CAM is then normalized by the ER density of the whole cell. (A) ER density of ROIs defined by CAM thresholds from 10–95% with increments of 5% is compared across 4 subgroups: ZIKV-infected 2D slices correctly predicted to be infected (true positives); mock-infected 2D slices correctly predicted to be uninfected (true negatives); ZIKV-infected 2D slices incorrectly predicted to be uninfected (false negatives); mock-infected 2D slices incorrectly predicted to be infected (false positives). (B) ER densities of 80% CAMs ROIs compared across subgroups. (C) Euclidean distances between center of mass of 80% CAMs ROIs and weighted center of mass of ERmoxGFP signal. Statistical analysis was performed using ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey HSD: * = P < 0.05, ** = P < 0.01, and *** = P < 0.001. Unless otherwise specified directly in line with each plot, we found all other pairwise comparisons to be statistically significant with a P < 0.01 (**). This helped to improve the visualization of our data points.
