Skip to main content
. 2021 May 27;184(11):2825–2842.e22. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2021.04.004

Figure S7.

Figure S7

Analysis of tetraploid complemented embryos and supporting information, related to Figure 6

(A) Cumulative distribution of nearest neighbor wild-type intrinsic ranks calculated separately for DKO and host cells (green and black lines, respectively) for each chimeric embryo, with Kolmogorov-Smirnov D statistic and p value.

(B) Scatterplot of Kolmogorov-Smirnov D statistics for DKO and control isogenic chimeras demonstrating mesoderm specific temporal retardation in the Foxc1/2 chimeras.

(C) Relative expression between control isogenic mESC and host in chimeric embryos of genes associated with the DKO phenotype (as in Figure 6E), shown either per embryo (numbered 1-4 according to transcriptional rank, from ‘youngest’ to ‘oldest’), or across cells per cell type.

(D) Cumulative distribution of nearest neighbor wild-type intrinsic ranks calculated for the embryonic compartment of DKO and isogenic control tetraploid embryos (4N; green and blue, respectively).

(E) Relative cell type distributions for each embryo calculated for the tetraploid (4N) complemented embryos (arranged from left to right according to intrinsic rank).

(F) Comparison of gene expression of bulk epiblast and early NM between Foxc1/2 DKO cells and host cells (or wild-type embryo cells in the case of tetraploid embryos) demonstrating only minor changes in the DKO derived cells in these populations. Highlighted are genes with high differential expression between DKO cells and host/wt cells (log2 fold change > 1.5, red) as well as differentially expressed genes in the embryonic mesoderm as shown in Figure 6E (purple).