Fig. 3.
Fig. 3. Evaluation of myeloid differentiation in mutant FdCP1 cells. / (A) Histologic analysis. FdCP1-derived cell lines expressing pSV2-neo alone (19-neo; A, B), FLAG-Stat5b WT (19-WT; C, D), FLAG-Stat5bm/m (19-M1 and 19-M2; E-H) were stained with Wright–Giemsa before or after differentiation in GM-CSF for 3 days. These photomicrographs are representative of the results obtained from 2 independent experiments. (B) Flow cytometric analysis. 19-neo, 19-WT, 19-M1, and 19-M2 cells were evaluated for expression of F4/80 (left column) or side scatter (SSC; right column) before (light tracing) or after differentiation (dark tracing) in GM-CSF for 3 days. These studies were carried out on the same set of cells evaluated by Wright–Giemsa staining. These histograms are representative of several independent experiments.

Evaluation of myeloid differentiation in mutant FdCP1 cells.

(A) Histologic analysis. FdCP1-derived cell lines expressing pSV2-neo alone (19-neo; A, B), FLAG-Stat5b WT (19-WT; C, D), FLAG-Stat5bm/m (19-M1 and 19-M2; E-H) were stained with Wright–Giemsa before or after differentiation in GM-CSF for 3 days. These photomicrographs are representative of the results obtained from 2 independent experiments. (B) Flow cytometric analysis. 19-neo, 19-WT, 19-M1, and 19-M2 cells were evaluated for expression of F4/80 (left column) or side scatter (SSC; right column) before (light tracing) or after differentiation (dark tracing) in GM-CSF for 3 days. These studies were carried out on the same set of cells evaluated by Wright–Giemsa staining. These histograms are representative of several independent experiments.

Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal