Skip to main content
. 2021 Jun 30;36(8):2249–2274. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deab123

Figure 3.

Figure 3.

RNA-seq comparisons of paired samples of E-tissues and UF-EVs. (A) Considering as ‘expressed’ those genes with at least 1 count per million (CPM) in at least n = 5 biological replicates (n = 5 E-Tissues or n = 5 EVs), Venn graph shows the number of gene transcripts detected in E-Tissues and in UF-EVs. Note that, based on this approach, out of 4132 gene transcripts detected in EVs samples, n = 39 genes have reached the threshold of 1 CPM in at least n = 5 samples of EVs but not of endometrial tissue. (B) Distribution of the average expression (log-transformed CPM values) of the 4093 gene transcripts detected in in both E-Tissues (upper panel) and UF-EVs (lower panel) (C) Correlation analysis of the gene transcripts detected in both sample types. The Pearson’s r is 0.70 (P<0.0001) and the Spearman’s ñ is 0.65 (P<0.0001). Each dot represents a gene, and values on x and y axes are the average gene expression values in tissue and UF-EVs samples, respectively. The color code represents the number of overlapping dots in a specific position of the graph. This number is quantified by the n-neighbors statistic that is the number of dots in the neighborhood of the considered dot. (D) Volcano plot of RNAs differentially detected in UF-EVs compared to E-Tissues (DGE analysis). DGE, differential gene expression analysis; E-tissues, endometrial tissues; UF-EVs, uterine fluid-derived extracellular vesicles.