Fig 1: Genetic interaction between Mi-2/Foxo and PGRP-SC2. (A-C) RT-qPCR of AMPs in double knockdown of Mi-2;PGRP-SC2 or Foxo;PGRP-SC2, compared to single knockdown. (D-E’) Survival curves comparing Mi-2 RNAi, Foxo RNAi, and double RNAi flies. The number of flies is as follows. In (D), lpp>GFP RNAi: 49, 48, 50; lpp>Mi-2 RNAi #1: 48, 50, 49; lpp>Mi-2 RNAi #1;PGRP-SC2 RNAi: 49, 50, 50; lpp>Mi-2 RNAi #2: 48, 48, 50; lpp>Mi-2 RNAi #2;PGRP-SC2 RNAi: 49, 50, 49. In D’, lpp>GFP RNAi: 49, 48, 50; lpp>Foxo RNAi #1: 50, 49, 48; lpp>Foxo RNAi #1;PGRP-SC2 RNAi: 49, 48, 50; lpp>Foxo RNAi #2: 50, 48, 49; lpp>Foxo RNAi #2;PGRP-SC2 RNAi: 50, 49, 48. The time points when half of the experimental flies (D, D’) died (LT50) are shown in (E, E’), respectively. (F) Bacterial load assays in indicated flies. In (A–C), data were collected from 5 independent replicates (10 flies for each replicate) and shown as means plus standard errors. In (D–E’), data were collected from 3 independent replicates. In (F), data were pooled from 21 independent replicates (10 flies for each replicate). *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001.