Skip to main content
. 2021 Jun 13;22(7):e52481. doi: 10.15252/embr.202152481

Figure EV1. CFU‐F, adipogenic, and osteogenic differentiation analysis in vitro .

Figure EV1

  • A, B
    Giemsa staining and statistical analysis of CFU‐F number of BMSCs from WT mice and tdTomato+ cells from AdipoqCre; R26tdTomato mice. Scale bar = 50 µm. Data were compared using an unpaired t‐test (** indicates P < 0.01), and error bars are standard deviations. n = 5 independent microscopic vision fields in (B).
  • C, D
    Adipogenic potential of BMSCs and tdTomato+ cells was assessed by oil red O staining, and PPARγ and Lpl were detected by qPCR. Scale bar = 50 µm. Data were compared using an unpaired t‐test, and error bars are standard deviations. n = 5 independent microscopic vision fields in (D).
  • E, F
    Osteogenic potential of BMSCs and tdTomato+ cells was assessed by the alizarin red staining, and Alp and Ocn were detected by qPCR. Scale bar = 50 µm. Data were compared using an unpaired t‐test (** indicates P < 0.01), and error bars are standard deviations. n = 5 independent microscopic vision fields in (F).