Additional data File 6.

Misexpression of Zac1 in the retina does not affect amacrine cells genesis. (a-f) P0 retinae were electroporated with control pCIG2 (a,c,e) or pCIG2-Zac1 (b,d,f) and cultured 8DIV. Electroporated cells were detected by GFP epifluorescence (green; a,b) and amacrine cells were identified by anti- syntaxin (red; c,d). (e,e',f,f') Merged images show similar numbers of GFP-positive electroporated cells that expressed syntaxin (Syn) after control (e) and Zac1 (f) electroporations. Arrowheads indicate electroporated cells that differentiated into amacrine cells. e' and f' are high magnification images of boxed area in e and f. (g) Quantitation of the percentage of electroporated cells that differentiate into amacrine cells after control pCIG2 (black bar; n = 3) or pCIG2-Zac1 (white bar; n = 3) electroporations. pCIG2 at E15.5: 62.3 ± 6.5%; 519 syntaxin/GFP double+/787 GFP+; Zac1 at E15.5: 72.7 ± 5.4%; 379 syntaxin/GFP double+/680 GFP+; pCIG2 at E17.5: 39.3 ± 5.4%; 897 syntaxin/GFP double+/2520 GFP+; Zac1 at E17.5: 51.3 ± 2.0%; 456 syntaxin/GFP double+/928 GFP+; pCIG2 at P0: 11.7 ± 3.4%; 81 syntaxin/GFP double+/552 GFP+; Zac1 at P0: 10.2 ± 2.3%; 83 syntaxin/GFP double+/376 GFP+.

Format: JPEG Size: 1.5MB Download file

Ma et al. Neural Development 2007 2:11   doi:10.1186/1749-8104-2-11