American Society of Hematology

Figure 4

$Figure 4. Transcriptome analysis of Fnip1−/− pro-B cells. (A) Scatter plot showing a comparative analysis between Fnip1+/+ transcriptomes (mRNA-Seq FPKM values) obtained from the Hardy pro-B cell fractions B and C-C′. Red dots represent genes whose transcription is statistically different between the 2 fractions; n = 1 (using pooled estimates of dispersion). (B) Same analysis as in panel A but comparing fractions C-C′ between Fnip1+/+ and Fnip1−/− mice; n = 2 for each genotype. (C) Bar graphs showing RT-qPCR measurements of transcription in Fnip1+/+ and Fnip1−/− pro-B cells from selected genes (n = 3). Histograms showing ccr9 and Rag1-GFP expression, as determined by flow cytometry, on B220+IgM−CD25− pro-B cells from KO and control mice. Each FACS analysis is representative of at least 3 independent experiments.$

Transcriptome analysis of Fnip1^−/− pro-B cells. (A) Scatter plot showing a comparative analysis between Fnip1^+/+ transcriptomes (mRNA-Seq FPKM values) obtained from the Hardy pro-B cell fractions B and C-C′. Red dots represent genes whose transcription is statistically different between the 2 fractions; n = 1 (using pooled estimates of dispersion). (B) Same analysis as in panel A but comparing fractions C-C′ between Fnip1^+/+ and Fnip1^−/− mice; n = 2 for each genotype. (C) Bar graphs showing RT-qPCR measurements of transcription in Fnip1^+/+ and Fnip1^−/− pro-B cells from selected genes (n = 3). Histograms showing ccr9 and Rag1-GFP expression, as determined by flow cytometry, on B220⁺IgM⁻CD25⁻ pro-B cells from KO and control mice. Each FACS analysis is representative of at least 3 independent experiments.

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only