Thinking...
We need to answer 6 questions, produce table format.

We must find pathway enrichment analysis: Methods says:

"Gene Ontology (GO) enrichment analysis for all DEGs was performed separately for down- and up-regulated genes by Blast2GO software [62]. The functional classification of unigenes was performed using WEGO software [63]. The significantly enriched GO terms were considered those with a p-value less than 0.05. The DEG-related KEGG pathways were obtained using KOBAS software [64], and pathways with a p-value less than 0.05 were defined as significantly enriched pathways."

So tools: Blast2GO, WEGO, KOBAS. Are they used for pathway enrichment? KOBAS is a tool for pathway enrichment; WEGO is for functional classification; but maybe also used for GO enrichment? The article uses Blast2GO for GO enrichment; KOBAS for KEGG pathway enrichment. WEGO is for functional classification of unigenes; not necessarily enrichment but classification. The question: "What tool was used for pathway enrichment analysis?" That is about pathways, so likely KEGG pathways via KOBAS. But also GO enrichment via Blast2GO. They ask for tool(s) used for enrichment analysis. So list Blast2GO and KOBAS. Also maybe WEGO? But WEGO is used for functional classification, not necessarily enrichment. The question: "List all tools or software packages used (e.g., DAVID, GSEA, Enrichr, etc.) that are explicitly mentioned in the article for enrichment analysis. Do not include tools used only for preprocessing." So Blast2GO and KOBAS are enrichment analysis tools. WEGO is classification, but maybe not enrichment? They used WEGO for functional classification of unigenes. But classification might be considered enrichment? It's not explicitly for enrichment? The Methods say "Gene Ontology (GO) enrichment analysis for all DEGs was performed separately for down- and up-regulated genes by Blast2GO software [159]". So Blast2GO used for GO enrichment. Also "The significantly enriched GO terms were considered those with a p-value less than 0.05." Also "The DEG-related KEGG pathways were obtained using KOBAS software [161], and pathways with a p-value less than 0.05 were defined as significantly enriched pathways." So KOBAS used for KEGG pathway enrichment. Not mention WEGO for enrichment. So tools: Blast2GO, KOBAS. Versions: not described. Gene set libraries: GO and KEGG. Did article describe using custom or specific background gene list? Not described. Which statistical tests used? Not described? The article doesn't specify the test (hypergeometric, etc.). But we should check. Methods: "The significantly enriched GO terms were considered those with a p-value less than 0.05." Not mention test type. KOBAS uses hypergeometric or Fisher? But not described. So "Not described". Multiple testing correction / FDR: Not described. They only mention p-value threshold. So "No".

But we must answer all 6 questions with table. Let's produce table with columns: Tool, Version, Gene set libraries, Custom background list, Statistical test(s), Multiple testing correction. Provide for each tool separately. If multiple tools, list all. Let's parse again for versions: Not described. So "Not described".

Thus output: a table with columns: Tool, Version, Gene set libraries used, Custom background list (Yes/No/Not described), Statistical test(s), Multiple testing correction.

But the question: "What statistical test(s) were used in enrichment analysis?" We must state name(s) of the statistical tests used. Article didn't mention. So "Not described".

Multiple testing correction: Not described. So "No".

Let's craft table.

But table format: maybe use Markdown table. Provide columns accordingly. Let's answer:

Tool | Version | Gene set libraries | Custom background list | Statistical test(s) | Multiple testing correction

List each tool separately. For each tool, the other columns accordingly. Since only two tools, create two rows: Blast2GO and KOBAS.

Check if any other tool: maybe KOBAS? But they use KOBAS for KEGG. Blast2GO for GO. So list both.

So final table:

| Tool | Version | Gene set libraries | Custom background list | Statistical test(s) | Multiple testing correction |
| Blast2GO | Not described | GO | Not described | Not described | No |
| KOBAS | Not described | KEGG | Not described | Not described | No |

However, they mention WEGO for classification of unigenes. WEGO is not enrichment but classification. The question: "What tool was used for pathway enrichment analysis?" WEGO is for functional classification, not enrichment. So not included. So okay.

Double-check if they used any other enrichment tool: maybe KOBAS. Yes. So we have two.

Also, they might have used KOBAS for KEGG enrichment; KOBAS uses hypergeometric test by default; but not described. So "Not described".

Also, they didn't mention multiple testing correction. So "No".

We must answer "Yes/No/Not described" for background gene list: Not described.

Thus final answer table.

Let's craft.

...done thinking.

| **Question** | **Answer** |
|---|---|
| What tool was used for pathway enrichment analysis? | Blast2GO, KOBAS |
| Were enrichment tool version(s) described? | Not described |
| Which gene set libraries were used? | Gene Ontology (GO), KEGG |
| Does the article describe using a custom or specific background gene list for enrichment analysis? | Not described |
| What statistical test(s) were used in enrichment analysis? | Not described |
| Was multiple testing correction / FDR applied to enrichment analysis? | No |