|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
| Home Help Feedback Subscriptions Archive Search Table of Contents | ||||
|
Fig. 5. (A) Phase contrast micrographs of neural stem cell-derived neurospheres
from P0 wild type (upper panel) and P0 tenascin C (TNC) null mice (lower
panel) - note that null spheres are smaller and more numerous. As discussed in
the main text, these differences were also observed in secondary passages of
the neurospheres. Scale bar: 80 µm. (B-C) Clonal analysis of fibroblast
growth factor (FGF2) (B) and epidermal growth factor (EGF)-responsive (C)
neural stem cell numbers in the brain of newborn TNC null mice using a serial
dilution neurosphere assay. The slope of the line reflects the proportion of
cells plated that form neurospheres; i.e. have stem cell properties. Note that
the TNC null cells (broken lines) contain more stem cells that respond to FGF2
than wild-type cells (solid line). This is shown by the steeper gradient of
the null-cell line in B. In contrast, the number of stem cells that respond to
EGF is not increased in the TNC null cells (C). Linear regression values
calculated from analysis of three independent experiments are shown within
each graph as means±s.e.m. of wild type (upper Figure) and null (lower
Figure) cells. The differences between wild type and null cells grown in FGF2
are significant; P<0.001 using Student's t-test.
|
