Table of contents Appendix Figure S1. CDC-EVs and ...
Recommend Documents
Appendix Table of contents. Appendix Figure S1â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦..p 2-3. Appendix Figure S2â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦.. p 4-5. Page 2. 2. Appendix Figure S1 ...
1. APPENDIX. Table of Contents .... Pâ¤0.05 (Mann-Whitney test). (B). For survival ..... data distribution, the Shapiro-Wilk normality test was used. If the normality ...
utilizing services provided âin the cloudâ by Amazon Web Services (Amazon Seattle, WA). A detailed schema for the survey and analytic data collection was ...
Isg15 for ATG GCC TGG GAC CTA AAG rev TTA GGC ACA CTG GTC CCC. Ifit2 for GGA GAG CAA TCT GCG ACA G rev GCT GCC TCA TTT AGA CCT CTG. Ifit3.
Appendix Fig S1: Separation of function mutants are defective in ICL unhooking. A) XPF-. ERCC1 depleted (ÎXE) NPE or XPF-ERCC1 depleted NPE ...
p. 2. Appendix Figure S1 - Analog-sensitive CDKL5 phosphorylates AMPH1 in vitro. p. 4. Appendix Figure S2 - Replicate comparison of MS1 peak areas. p. 5.
p. 2. Appendix Figure S1 - Analog-sensitive CDKL5 phosphorylates AMPH1 in vitro. p. 4. Appendix Figure S2 - Replicate comparison of MS1 peak areas. p. 5.
Figure 2B. Figure 3B. Figure 4B. N value exact p value asterics. N value exact p value asterics. N value exact p value asterics. UNT. 11. N/A. UNT. 8. N/A. UNT. 5.
2. Appendix Table S1. X-ray data collection and refinement statistics. Dataset. Ctf18C-Dcc1-Ctf8. Dcc190-380 Native. Dcc190-380 Peak. Dcc190-380 Inflection.
coronal plane with a vibratome (VT1200S, Leica Biosystems, Germany) and were. 84 transferred for 1 min in a solution containing (in mM) 225 D-mannitol, 2.5 ...
The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) prostate cancer dataset was .... was carried out using the DESeq workflow (Anders & Huber, 2010). The raw and normalized ...
expressed as the concentration of IgG in ng/ml able to neutralize 90% of viral infectivity (IC90) and the reactivity of the antibodies in western blot (WB) under non-.
reasons. Appendix Table S1. Mouse cohort. Young age. (3â7M). Adult age. (7â13M). Middle age. (10â17M). Old age. (15â23M). Cohort 1. OF. EPM. SA. NOR.
Figure S1: ClustalW alignment of glutathione reductase of P. falciparum and P. ... 1. Î gr. 2. Î gr 3. Wt 2. M. C. 50 -. 58 -. kDa. AnâºâPfGR. AnâºâPbB5. Probe: 3'dhfr ...
... same underlying coordinate system defined by a PCA of a merger of common ...... All p values. Diagonal. â All p values. Diagonal. â All p values. Diagonal. 0.
ÎC4;4;4S-ol, ÎC6;6;6S-ol, C6;4;0S-ol and ÎC4;2,6;6S-ol] ... Figure S6: [MS2 of [M + Na]+ (m/z 556.2) for derivatized unreduced disaccharide standards] ....10 ...
read counts across the time series (replicates averaged per time point) for each ... Appendix Figure S6 â Correlation of TT-seq signal for closest eRNAs with their.
RBPJ and L3MBTL3 co-localize at two distal HES1 enhancers. ChIP analyses of endogenous RBPJ and L3MBTL3 in U87-MG cells were performed for two ...
used with oil immersion objective 100x/1.45, and dry objective 40x/0.95 was .... Quantitative Real-Time PCR (qRT-PCR) was carried out using SYBR Green ...
A. Calculation of p-values in mouse groups >18 months of age with +3 cataracts. ... indicate mean ± SEM in groups of mice >18 months of age (N indicates ...
Appendix Figures. A new hERG allosteric modulator rescues genetic and drug-induced Long-. QT Syndrome phenotypes in cardiomyocytes from isogenic pairs ...
*p(day6)=0.0408, *p(day12)=0.0440. B. Quantification values from Figure 2D of NT vs. PAPP-A involuting mammary glands. (Average of 3 determinations/mouse ...
Table of contents Appendix Figure S1. CDC-EVs and ...
EV-YF1 transfer in control NHDFs compared to CDCs. Appendix Figure S4. EV-YF1 modulates IL-10 expression. Appendix Figure S5. EV-YF1 induced direct ...
Table of contents Appendix Figure S1. CDC-EVs and NHDF-EVs size/concentration. Appendix Figure S2. CDCs potency from different donors in vivo. Appendix Figure S3. EV-YF1 transfer in control NHDFs compared to CDCs. Appendix Figure S4. EV-YF1 modulates IL-10 expression. Appendix Figure S5. EV-YF1 induced direct protection of cardiomyocytes from oxidative stress. Appendix Figure S6. Cardiac Il10 and EV-YF1 expression after I/R. Appendix Figure S7. EV-YF1 reduced the number of inflammatory macrophages CD68+ and apoptotic cardiomyocytes in scar area. Appendix Figure S8. Exosome isolation protocol. Appendix Figure Legends.
Appendix Figure S1. CDC-EVs and NHDF-EVs size/concentration.
A
B
Appendix Figure S2. CDCs potency from different donors in vivo.
15
10
D EF %
5
0 YKT
-5
-10
OD220
ZCI
ZKN
BM030
LO88
Placebo
Appendix Figure S3. EV-YF1 transfer in control NHDFs compared to CDCs.
Appendix Figure S5. EV-YF1 induced direct protection of cardiomyocytes from oxidative stress.
**
P=0.0047 140
% of calcein (RFU)
120
****
P40 Il10 Ct values
7
6
Number of animals
5
4
3
2
1
0 Vehicle
Ys
EV-YF1
Appendix Figure S7. EV-YF1 reduced the number of inflammatory macrophages CD68+ and apoptotic cardiomyocytes in scar area.
A Vehicle
Ys
EV-YF1
CD68 a-actinin Dapi
B Vehicle
Ys
TUNEL a-actinin Dapi
EV-YF1
Appendix Figure S8. Exosome isolation protocol.
5 days
CDCs 100% confluence
Filtration 0.45 mM to remove cellular debris
CDCs Serum Free media
A
Ultrafiltration
3,000 g, 1 hour, 4C
B
+ Exoquick solution 4C-16 hours
Centrifugation 16,000 g, 15min, 4C
Exosomes concentrated conditioned media
Exosomes pellet
APPENDIX FIGURE LEGEND
Appendix Figure S1 - CDC-EVs and NHDF-EVs size/concentration. A, B CDC-EVs (A) and NHDF-EVs (B) size distribution and particle number were analyzed by the LM10-HS system (NanoSight). Histogram of CDC-EVs diameter, representative of results from a total of 6 donors.
Appendix Figure S2 - CDCs potency from different donors in vivo. Percent change in ejection fraction (baseline 2 hrs post-MI to 21 days, ΔEF%) post-MI with CDC treatment (6 different donors, n=8 animals/donor) or placebo (saline, n=14 animals). Potent CDCs (ZCI, YKT, OD220) were delineated from non-potent CDCs (LO88, BM030, ZKN) by positive ΔEF%.
Appendix Figure S3. EV-YF1 transfer in control NHDFs compare to CDCs. A, B, C Expression of EV-YF1 by qPCR in cells (A), EVs (B) and BMDMs (C) according the same protocol described in Figure 4A for CDCs (blue) and NHDFs (green). Results depict the mean ± SEM of n=3. (Groups were compared using 2-tailed, unpaired, Student’s t test; (A) (CDC: p=0.0013; NHDF: p=0.0088), (B) (CDC: p=0.0059; NHDF: p=0.0068) and (C) (CDC: p=0.0019; NHDF: p
