Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2006 Nov 1.
Published in final edited form as: Toxicol Sci. 2005 Jun 15;88(1):60–72. doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kfi228

Fig. 7. Transcriptional responsiveness of X. laevis and mouse AHRs in luciferase reporter gene assays.

Fig. 7

COS-7 cells were co-transfected with expression plasmids for a single AHR, human ARNT, pGudLuc6.1 (reporter construct), and pRL-TK (transfection control construct) as described in Materials and Methods. Cells were treated with DMSO or graded concentrations of TCDD, and luciferase activities measured after 18 hr. Relative luciferase units (RLU) were calculated by normalizing firefly luciferase activity to the activity of the transfection control, Renilla luciferase. Squares, X. laevis AHR1α; triangles, X. laevis AHR1β, inverted triangles with dotted line, mouse AHR. (A) Overall responsiveness. Relative luciferase expression is plotted against TCDD concentration. Each data point represents the mean of triplicate wells and error bars represent the standard error. Results are representative of three experiments. (B) Fractional induction. To more readily compare EC50s, mean RLU values from replicate experiments were pooled, and responsiveness at each TCDD concentration was normalized to the maximum response for each AHR.