Figure 7.
Comparative analysis of ER-phagy and ER network in developing heart and liver. (A–D) Representative images of heart sections and quantitative analysis from ER-TRG (+/−) reporter mice at E14.5, P9, P19. Panel A illustrates ER-phagy signals in the ventricle, while Panel C depicts these signals in the atrium, across the same developmental stages. The pixel number of RFP-only signals and total RFP signals were calculated by ImageJ and the ratio of RFP: total area (RFP+GFP) was quantified (left). The intensity of RFP-only signals and total RFP signals were calculated by ImageJ on a pixel-by-pixel basis and the fluorescence ratio of RFP: total RFP were quantified (right). Values were stated as mean ± SEM (n = 3–4 per group). Statistical differences were evaluated using one-way ANOVA. *P <0.05, **P <0.01, ***P <0.001. Scale bar: 20 μm. (E and F) Confocal imaging of ER-phagy activities and quantitative analysis in liver sections from ER-TRG (+/−) reporter mice at E14.5, P9, P19. Values were stated as mean ± SEM (n = 4 per group). Statistical differences were evaluated using one-way ANOVA. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001. Scale bar: 20 μm. (G–J) Immunoblot and quantitative analysis showing ER-phagy activities in heart and liver isolated from ER-TRG (+/−) reporter at E14.5, P9, and P19. The band intensities of RFP and RFP-GFP were quantified and the ratio of RFP:RFP-GFP (normalized to WT) is shown (I and J). Values were stated as mean ± SEM (n = 4–5 per group). Statistical differences were evaluated using one-way ANOVA. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01. Source data are available for this figure: SourceData F7.

Comparative analysis of ER-phagy and ER network in developing heart and liver. (A–D) Representative images of heart sections and quantitative analysis from ER-TRG (+/−) reporter mice at E14.5, P9, P19. Panel A illustrates ER-phagy signals in the ventricle, while Panel C depicts these signals in the atrium, across the same developmental stages. The pixel number of RFP-only signals and total RFP signals were calculated by ImageJ and the ratio of RFP: total area (RFP+GFP) was quantified (left). The intensity of RFP-only signals and total RFP signals were calculated by ImageJ on a pixel-by-pixel basis and the fluorescence ratio of RFP: total RFP were quantified (right). Values were stated as mean ± SEM (n = 3–4 per group). Statistical differences were evaluated using one-way ANOVA. *P <0.05, **P <0.01, ***P <0.001. Scale bar: 20 μm. (E and F) Confocal imaging of ER-phagy activities and quantitative analysis in liver sections from ER-TRG (+/−) reporter mice at E14.5, P9, P19. Values were stated as mean ± SEM (n = 4 per group). Statistical differences were evaluated using one-way ANOVA. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001. Scale bar: 20 μm. (G–J) Immunoblot and quantitative analysis showing ER-phagy activities in heart and liver isolated from ER-TRG (+/−) reporter at E14.5, P9, and P19. The band intensities of RFP and RFP-GFP were quantified and the ratio of RFP:RFP-GFP (normalized to WT) is shown (I and J). Values were stated as mean ± SEM (n = 4–5 per group). Statistical differences were evaluated using one-way ANOVA. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01. Source data are available for this figure: SourceData F7.

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal