Fig. 2.

ER volume analysis in the control and injured motor neuron. a–b Representative three-dimensional reconstructed structures of the ER close to the nucleus (ER perinuclear) and close to the PM (ER periphery), which were selected randomly for volume analysis (a control neuron, b injured neuron at one week after injury). a′, a″, b′, b″ Higher magnification of an example of a 3D reconstructed individual ER with a unit volume of 1 µm³. c The volume comparison of the ER perinuclear and ER periphery in the control motor neurons shows that the ER is more abundant in the area close to the nucleus than the area close to the PM. d In the injured motor neurons, the volume of ER perinuclear and ER periphery shows that there is no difference between them. e The comparison between the perinuclear ER region and the peripheral ER region in both control and injured motor neurons are conducted. Ten individual-ER from the perinuclear and peripheral regions in each cell were measured respectively (control: n = 3 neurons, N = 3 mice; injured: n = 3 neurons, N = 3 mice). The error bars show the standard deviation. The p-value c, d and e was determined using the Student’s t-test and two-way ANOVA with post hoc Tukey’s test respectively: **p < 0.005 and ***p < 0.001, (ns) = non-significant. Scale bar a, b 5 µm