Here's a breakdown of the pathway enrichment analysis methods described in the provided text, answered as requested for table creation: **1. What tool was used for pathway enrichment analysis?** * Not explicitly stated as a single tool. The text mentions “functional module identification” and “annotation,” implying tools were used for these purposes, but doesn't name them specifically. **2. Was a tool version number provided?** * Not described. **3. What gene set library was queried (eg: GO, KEGG, Reactome or other)?** * GO (Gene Ontology) and KEGG (Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes) are explicitly mentioned as gene set libraries used for annotation and functional module identification. **4. Was a background gene list defined for pathway enrichment analysis?** * The text states they used “almost 90% of gene in *C. roseus*” for network construction which could be interpreted as the background list. However, there is no specific mention of defining a background list for the enrichment analysis itself. **5. What statistical test was used for enrichment analysis?** * The text mentions “false discovery rate correction,” suggesting a statistical test was used, but does *not* specify the exact test used for the enrichment analysis. **6. Was false discovery rate correction used to control the number of false positives in the pathway enrichment analysis?** * Yes, the text specifically states that “false discovery rate correction” was used. --- Here's the data in a table format for easy collation: | Question | Answer | | ----------------------------------------------------- | ----------------- | | What tool was used for pathway enrichment analysis? | Not described | | Was a tool version number provided? | Not described | | What gene set library was queried? | GO, KEGG | | Was a background gene list defined? | Possibly, implied by use of ~90% of *C. roseus* genes | | What statistical test was used? | Not described | | Was false discovery rate correction used? | Yes |