Skip to main content
. 2020 Sep 26;14(11):2936–2959. doi: 10.1002/1878-0261.12795

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

The endogenous expression of BACH2 and FUS, and their effects on the biological behaviour of glioma cells. (A) The expression of BCACH2 was measured by western blotting in NBTs and glioma tissues of grade Ⅰ–Ⅱ and grade Ⅲ–Ⅳ. Data are presented as mean ± SD (n = 12 for each group) and analysed by using one‐way ANOVA, **P < 0.01 vs. NBT group; # P < 0.05 vs. Grade Ⅰ‐Ⅱ group. (B) The expression of BACH2 was measured by western blotting in normal HA and glioblastoma cell lines (U87 and U251). Data are presented as mean ± SD (n = 3 for each group) and analysed by using one‐way ANOVA. **P < 0.01 vs. HA. (C) The expression of FUS was measured by western blotting in NBTs and glioma tissues of grade Ⅰ–Ⅱ and grade Ⅲ–Ⅳ. Data are presented as mean ± SD (n = 12 for each group) and analysed by using one‐way ANOVA. **P < 0.01 vs. NBT group; ## P < 0.01 vs. grade Ⅰ‐Ⅱ group. (D) The expression of FUS was measured by western blotting in normal HA, U87 and U251 cells. Data are presented as mean ± SD (n = 3 for each group) and analysed by using one‐way ANOVA. *P < 0.05 vs. HA; **P < 0.01 vs. HA. (E) CCK‐8 assay was used to measure the effect of BACH2 and FUS on the viability of U87 and U251 cells. (F) Transwell assays were used to measure the effect of BACH2 and FUS on cell migration and invasion of U87 and U251 cells. (G) Flow cytometry analysis of U87 and U251 cells treated with altered expressions of BACH2 and FUS. (E‐G) Data are presented as mean ± SD (n = 3 for each group) and analysed by using one‐way ANOVA. *P < 0.05 vs. sh‐NC group; **P < 0.01 vs. sh‐NC group; # P < 0.05 vs. sh‐NC group; ## P < 0.01 vs. sh‐NC group; ^^ P < 0.01 vs. sh‐NC+sh‐NC group; ψ P < 0.05 vs. sh‐BACH2 group; ψψ P < 0.01 vs. sh‐BACH2 group; & P < 0.05 vs. sh‐FUS group; && P < 0.01 vs. sh‐FUS group. Scale bar represents 40 μm.