Skip to main content
. 2022 Oct 17;9(33):2203257. doi: 10.1002/advs.202203257

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Effects of in vitro nanoinjection. A,B) Nanoinjection with p16‐siRNA (siRNA) induces p16 protein knockdown if compared to NSC nanoinjection (NSC) 72 h following interfacing. A) Immunofluorescence microscopy showing p16 protein expression. p16 staining (green) with DAPI (blue) nuclear counterstain. Scale bar 50 µm. B) Quantification of the fraction of cells expressing p16 for p16‐siRNA (siRNA) and NSC nanoinjected HCEnCs (n = 3). p16‐siRNA nanoinjected samples have a statistically significant lower fraction of p16‐positive cells. Data are expressed as mean + SD. Two‐sided t‐test was used to assess statistical significance, p = 0.0027. C,D) RNAi nanoinjection to HCEnCs enhances their proliferative capacity 72 h following interfacing. C) Immunofluorescence microscopy showing ki67 protein expression in p16‐siRNA (siRNA) and NSC treated HCEnCs in vitro. ki67 staining (green) with DAPI (blue) as nuclear counterstain. D) Quantification of the fraction of cells expressing ki67 protein in p16‐siRNA (siRNA) and NSC treated HCEnCs in vitro (n = 3). p16‐siRNA nanoinjected samples have a statistically significant higher fraction of ki67‐positive cells. Data are expressed as mean + SD. Two‐sided t‐test was used to assess statistical significance, p = 0.0148.