Skip to main content
. 2022 May 13;14(2):494–511. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmgh.2022.05.002

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Effects of IE2 expression on cell cycle and DNA damage. (A) Network of PPI of cell-cycle–related DEGs between Rosa26-LSL-IE2+/- and Rosa26-LSL-IE2+/-, cre mice. Green represents a regulatory gene, red represents a target gene. (B) The cell cycles were detected by flow cytometry between D1 Rosa26-LSL-IE2+/- and Rosa26-LSL-IE2+/-, cre mice. (C) Proportional distribution of cells in GO, S, and G2/M stages of the cell cycle. (D) D1 liver sections stained with immunostained for Ki67 (left). Quantification of Ki67-positive cells (right). (E) mRNA expression levels of P21 and P27 were measured by quantitative real-time PCR. (F) The protein expression levels of P21 and P27 were measured by Western blot (left). Quantification of P21 and P27 expression (right). (G) Comparison of DNA damage between D1 Rosa26-LSL-IE2+/- and Rosa26-LSL-IE2+/-, cre mice. γH2AX is a marker of DNA damage. Green arrows represent DNA damage. Scale bars: 20 μm. Ctrl represents Rosa26-LSL-IE2+/-, IE2 represents Rosa26-LSL-IE2+/-, cre. Error bars represent SEM. The Student t test was used to analyze statistical differences.∗P < .05, ∗∗∗P < .001. n = 3 mice per group. Ctrl, control; DAPI, 4′, 6-diamidino-2-phenylindole.