Figure 5.

E23 of Cpmer is responsible for Eomes translation and CM differentiation

(A) Schematic of Cpmer mutants.

(B) RIP analysis of eEF1A binding with Eomes mRNA in KO-Cpmer cells transfected with Cpmer mutants. Data shown are the mean ± SEM, n = 3 independent experiments.

(C) Polysome profile analysis of Eomes and T mRNAs.

(D–F) qRT-PCR (D), western blot (E), and immunofluorescence (F) detection of expression of Eomes and T. Data shown are the mean ± SEM, n = 3 independent experiments. Scale bar, 20 μm.

(G) Representative FACS results and the statistics of percentage of Flk1⁺Pdgfrα⁺ cells. Data shown are the mean ± SEM, n = 3 independent experiments.

(H) Percentage of spontaneously contracting EBs. Data shown are the mean ± SEM, n = 3 independent experiments.

(I) qRT-PCR analysis of the CM marker genes. Data shown are the mean ± SEM, n = 3 independent experiments. ^∗p < 0.05, ^∗∗p < 0.01 (versus the WT); #p < 0.05 and ###p < 0.001 (versus KO + EV [empty vector]); Student’s t test.

See also Figure S5.