Extended Data Fig. 1. HFO formation and 3D morphology.
a, Typical outcome of one experiment. b, Typical examples of successfully formed versus failed HES3 NKX2.5-eGFP-derived HFOs. Only successfully formed HFOs were used for subsequent experiments. c, HFO formation efficiency determined by the proportion of successfully formed HFOs from n = 10 independent experiments (418 HFOs in total). Data are presented as mean ± SEM. d, Whole mount immunofluorescence (IF) staining for NKX2.5 on an HFO derived from the hiPSC line HSC_ADCF_SeV-iPS2 showing a ring-like NKX2.5 pattern equivalent to HES3 NKX2.5-eGFP-derived HFOs. e, Representative images of HES3 NKX2.5-eGFP-derived HFOs differentiated in five different Matrigel lots. f, Comparison of HES3 NKX2.5-eGFP-derived HFOs differentiated in Matrigel, Geltrex or collagen I on d0 and d10 of differentiation. g, Representative images of HES3 NKX2.5-eGFP-derived HFOs from d7 – d10 of differentiation. h, Total area of HFOs from d7 – d10 of differentiation. n = 4 HFOs from one experiment; one-way ANOVA (Tukey’s multiple comparison test); data are presented as mean ± SEM; d7/d10: *P = 0.0115; d8/d10: *P = 0.0268. (i) Area of myocardial layer (ML) plus inner core (IC) from d7 – d10 of differentiation. n = 4 HFOs from one experiment; one-way ANOVA (Tukey’s multiple comparison test); data are presented as mean ± SEM; ns = not significant (P > 0.05). (j) Scheme of an HFO with defined axes. OL=outer layer. Scale bars: a–g: 500 µm.