Table 1.
Activation of GFPΔRaf-1:ER induces cell cycle arrest
Cells
|
Days
|
4-HT (nm)
|
G1 (%)
|
G2/M (%)
|
S (%)
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Babe | 2 | 0 | 41.0 | 13.9 | 45.1 |
2 | 100 | 42.0 | 12.9 | 45.1 | |
4 | 0 | 33.8 | 8.4 | 57.9 | |
4 | 100 | 33.5 | 8.4 | 58.0 | |
GFPΔRaf-1[YY]:ER | 2 | 0 | 51.4 | 14.5 | 34.1 |
2 | 100 | 57.9 | 19.1 | 23.0 | |
4 | 0 | 34.8 | 11.9 | 53.3 | |
4 | 100 | 69.4 | 25.3 | 5.4 | |
GFPΔRaf-1[DD]:ER | 2 | 0 | 54.4 | 13.9 | 31.6 |
2 | 100 | 62.6 | 25.7 | 11.6 | |
4 | 0 | 35.0 | 10.4 | 54.6 | |
4 | 100 | 67.8 | 30.2 | 2.0 |
Puromycin-resistant IMR-90 cells infected with control (Babe) and GFPΔRaf-1:ER-encoding retroviruses were treated with 100 nm 4-HT for 2 or 4 days and labeled with 15 μm BrdU for 3 hr. Ethanol-fixed cells were stained with FITC-anti-BrdU and with propidium iodide, and the percentage of cells in the different phases of the cell cycle was assessed by flow cytometry.