Two-Way ANOVA results when comparing the influence of gender and group on the overall variance seen between offspring.

<p>Two-Way ANOVA results when comparing the influence of gender and group on the overall variance seen between offspring.</p

Anthropometric Data: Con_Con, Con_Ob, Ob_Con, Ob_Ob.

<p>A = Offspring Body Weights; B = Offspring Pancreas Weights; C = Pancreatic Triglyceride Concentrations; D = Macrovesicular Fat Infiltration; E = Oral Glucose Tolerance Test. * = p<.05; ** = p<.001; *** = p<.0001 (n = 4–5/group). ANOVA with Tukey post hoc test.</p

Primer sequences were obtained for the relevant genes of interest from GenBank (except for the primers for the circadian study arm).

<p>The primer sequences were analyzed for optimum primers using Primer 3 Software. Ready-to-use Quantitect Primer Assays (Qiagen) were purchased for the circadian arm of the study. Each assay contains forward and reverse primers that are generated from the NCBI Reference Sequence database, optimised and bioinformatically validated.</p

mRNA Expression of Circadian Genes: Con_Con, Con_Ob, Ob_Con, Ob_Ob.

<p>A = Clock; B = Per-2; C = BMAL-1; D = Per-1; E = REV-ERB-α. %%% = p<.0001; ∞∞∞ = p<.0001; * = p<.05; ** = p<.001; *** = p<.0001; ## = p<.001; § = p<.05. (% = Con_Con versus Con_Ob; ∞ = Con_Con versus Ob_Con; * = Con_Con versus Ob_Ob; # = Con_Ob versus Ob_Ob; § = Ob_Con versus Ob_Ob) (n = 4–5/group). ANOVA with Tukey post hoc test.</p

Cosinor Analysis of Circadian Genes: Con_Con, Con_Ob, Ob_Con, Ob_Ob.

<p>A = Clock; B = Bmal-1; C = Per-1; D = Per-2; E = REV-ERB-α. (% = Con_Con versus Con_Ob; * = Con_Con versus Ob_Ob; § = Ob_Con versus Ob_Ob) (n = 4–5/group).</p

mRNA Expression of markers of Pancreatic Injury: Con_Con, Con_Ob, Ob_Con, Ob_Ob.

<p>A = IL-6; B = TNF-α; C = α-SMA; D = Collagen; E = TGF- β. * = p<.05; ** = p<.001; *** = p<.0001 (n = 4–5/group). ANOVA with Tukey post hoc test.</p

Study CONSORT diagram detailing the flow of control and Barrett's esophagus patients (cases) through the study.

<p>Patients who were unable to swallow the Cytosponge or whose Cytosponge sample failed processing were excluded from the study. Exact numbers of control and BE patients who successfully completed the study are noted.</p

Sensitivity of the Cytosponge-TFF3 in different groups of patients (full dataset in S2 and S3 Tables).

<p>C, Circumferential length; IMC, intramucosal carcinoma; LGD, low grade dysplasia; M, maximal length; NDBE, non-dysplastic BE.</p><p>Sensitivity of the Cytosponge-TFF3 in different groups of patients (full dataset in <a href="http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001780#pmed.1001780.s005" target="_blank">S2</a> and <a href="http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001780#pmed.1001780.s006" target="_blank">S3</a> Tables).</p

Clinical covariates have no impact on sensitivity and specificity of the test.

<p>Clinical covariates have no impact on sensitivity and specificity of the test.</p

Modeling of Cytosponge-TFF3 testing and risk stratification in the primary care population with reflux symptoms.

<p>Extrapolation of findings to a hypothetical population of 10,000 individuals with reflux symptoms using a sensitivity and specificity of 79.9% and 92.4%, respectively, for the TFF3 screen, and a sensitivity and specificity of 86% (95% CI of 65%–96%) and 100% (95% CI of 94.6%–100%), respectively, for <i>TP53</i> mutation screening for detection of HGD. The assumed prevalence of BE was 3%. In patients found to be high risk, endoscopy within 6–8 wk would be recommended. For low-risk patients, a repeat Cytosponge-TFF3 test would be performed at an interval of several years (exact timing to be determined) in case they had become TP53 positive over this time period. In the TFF3-negative arm, the repeat Cytosponge testing might not be necessary. If it took place, repeat testing would be recommended within 6 to 8 wk of the delivery of the TFF3-negative results.</p