Skip to main content
. 2021 Jul 29;22(9):e51872. doi: 10.15252/embr.202051872

Figure EV1. Enriched pathways in C‐EMT.

Figure EV1

  1. Western blot comparing ECAD in sorted ECAD+ versus ECAD− cells from two C‐EMT and three P‐EMT murine PDA cell lines.
  2. qPCR comparing Ecad mRNA in sorted ECAD+ versus ECAD− cells from a P‐EMT (454) and C‐EMT (483) murine PDA cell line. Experiment was performed in triplicate. Statistical analysis by Student’s unpaired t‐test (****P < 0.0001; non‐significant (NS); ± SEM).
  3. Left: Bioinformatic schematic for GSEA comparing ECAD− versus ECAD+ murine PDA tumor cells in either P‐EMT tumors (n = 8) or C‐EMT (n = 3). Right: GO and KEGG pathways upregulated in P‐EMT tumors. Normalized enrichment score (NES) for the top 25 pathways with a false discovery rate (FDR) < 0.15 are shown, ordered by FDR. Red text indicates pathways of interest.
  4. Gene ontology (GO) and KEGG pathways upregulated in C‐EMT tumors. NES score for the top 25 pathways with an FDR < 0.15 are shown ordered by FDR value. Red text indicates pathways of interest.
  5. HOMER Motif analysis comparing C‐EMT ECAD− tumor cells versus C‐EMT ECAD+ tumor cells. The five most enriched pathways shown. Statistical analysis performed in HOMER.

Source data are available online for this figure.