Journal: Liver transplantation : official publication of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the International Liver Transplantation Society

Article Title: Significant enhancement by anti-ICOS antibody of suboptimal tacrolimus immunosuppression in rat liver transplantation.

doi: 10.1002/lt.20167

Figure Lengend Snippet: Figure 2. Immunohistochemical examination of liver allografts 5 days after transplantation. Livers were taken from recipients treated with tacrolimus alone (A, C, E) or with tacrolimus and anti-ICOS antibody together (B, D, F). Cellular infiltration was stained with anti- CD2 (A, B), CD4 (C, D), and CD8 (E, F) antibodies, and visualized with alkaline phosphatase-conjugated secondary anti- body. Marked reduction of lymphocyte infiltration (red staining) was observed in the tacrolimus and anti-ICOS antibody treated group (B, D, F, arrows). Abbreviations: P, portal vein. Original magnification; 100.

Article Snippet: A thin cryocut section of the frozen sample was stained for CD2 (OX-54 and OX-55, 1:1 mixture, cat. codes MCA543, MCA544, respectively, Serotec, Oxford, UK), CD4 (W3/25, cat. code CL003AP, Cedarlane Laboratories, Hornby, Ontario, Canada), or CD8 (OX-8, cat. code MCA48G, Serotec, Oxford, UK), as previously described.14 All antibodies were diluted 100-fold with phosphate-buffered saline containing a final concentration of 1% bovine serum albumin.

Techniques: Immunohistochemical staining, Transplantation Assay, Staining

Journal: Animals : an open access journal from MDPI

Article Title: Refining Stereotaxic Neurosurgery Techniques and Welfare Assessment for Long-Term Intracerebroventricular Device Implantation in Rodents.

doi: 10.3390/ani13162627

Figure Lengend Snippet: Figure 6. Effect of the different implantable devices and the refined stereotaxic protocol on the percentage change in animal body weight at different timepoints. Note the striking drop in APP mice implanted with the original device at W3 leading to us considering and applying a humane endpoint in this experimental group. Specific sample size is provided in Table 1. Data expressed as median and IQR. Kruskall–Wallis test for multiple comparisons (W0 and W3) and Mann–Whitney U test for independent pairwise comparisons (W8). * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01. W, week.

Article Snippet: In this regard, and in agreement with the aforementioned results, the percentage change in body weight decreased in all animals undergoing stereotaxic surgery, regardless of the implanted device at W3 (p WT naïve vs. original= 0.001; p WT naïve vs. miniaturized= 0.004; p WT original vs. Alzet = 0.045; p WT miniaturized vs. Alzet = 0.044; p APP naïve vs. original < 0.001; p APP naïve vs. miniaturized = 0.002; p APP original vs. Alzet = 0.006; Figure 6).

Techniques: MANN-WHITNEY

Journal: Animals : an open access journal from MDPI

Article Title: Refining Stereotaxic Neurosurgery Techniques and Welfare Assessment for Long-Term Intracerebroventricular Device Implantation in Rodents.

doi: 10.3390/ani13162627

Figure Lengend Snippet: Figure 7. Effect of changes in the dimensions of implanted device and the refined stereotaxic protocol on animal welfare throughout the experiment. (a) Representation (top) and heatmap (bottom) of the median welfare assessment scores throughout the duration of the experiment for each experimental group. The higher the scores, the more compromised the welfare of animals. It is important to point out the elevated scores obtained in both WT and APP mice implanted with the original device and following the traditional protocol at W2 and W3, which resulted in the application of humane endpoint and termination of the experiment for this experimental group at this timepoint. No statistical test has been performed for these data over time due to the incompatibility with the wide variety of experiment termination. (b) Quantification of animal welfare at timepoints shared by most experimental groups, i.e., W3 and W8. (c) Pre- and post-representations of animal welfare scores at W1 vs. W3 vs. W8 or W1 vs. W3, for each experimental group individually. Specific sample size is provided in Table 1. Data expressed as median and IQR. Kruskal–Wallis test for multiple comparisons (W3 in (b)); Mann–Whitney U test for independent pairwise comparisons (WT vs. APP comparisons in b; W8 in (b)); Friedman test for multiple comparisons with repeated measures (naïve and miniaturized in (c)); and Wilcoxon test for dependent pairwise comparisons (original and Alzet in (c)). * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01, for differences between experimental groups based on the implanted device and multiple comparisons; # p < 0.05; for differences between WT and APP genotypes in (b) (see Figure S2 for detailed analysis).

Article Snippet: In this regard, and in agreement with the aforementioned results, the percentage change in body weight decreased in all animals undergoing stereotaxic surgery, regardless of the implanted device at W3 (p WT naïve vs. original= 0.001; p WT naïve vs. miniaturized= 0.004; p WT original vs. Alzet = 0.045; p WT miniaturized vs. Alzet = 0.044; p APP naïve vs. original < 0.001; p APP naïve vs. miniaturized = 0.002; p APP original vs. Alzet = 0.006; Figure 6).

Techniques: MANN-WHITNEY

Journal: Animals : an open access journal from MDPI

Article Title: Refining Stereotaxic Neurosurgery Techniques and Welfare Assessment for Long-Term Intracerebroventricular Device Implantation in Rodents.

doi: 10.3390/ani13162627

Figure Lengend Snippet: Figure 8. Effect of implantation of smaller devices following refined intrathecal implantation proce- dures on general and anxiety-like behaviors. (a,b) Dorsal views of two different mice implanted with the miniaturized device at W3 and W8 (a), and with the Alzet pump at W3 and W4 (b), following in both cases the optimized surgery protocol. Note the good general appearance of the animals and of

Article Snippet: In this regard, and in agreement with the aforementioned results, the percentage change in body weight decreased in all animals undergoing stereotaxic surgery, regardless of the implanted device at W3 (p WT naïve vs. original= 0.001; p WT naïve vs. miniaturized= 0.004; p WT original vs. Alzet = 0.045; p WT miniaturized vs. Alzet = 0.044; p APP naïve vs. original < 0.001; p APP naïve vs. miniaturized = 0.002; p APP original vs. Alzet = 0.006; Figure 6).

Techniques:

Journal: iScience

Article Title: Single-cell transcriptomics reveals the role of antigen presentation in liver metastatic breast cancer

doi: 10.1016/j.isci.2024.108896

Figure Lengend Snippet: Overview of using scRNA technology to study cancer liver metastasis

Article Snippet: The sections were stained for three panels by using 4-color Novo-Light multiplex fluorescence immunohistochemistry: panel 1 including Rabbit anti-FCN3 (C-term) Polyclonal Antibody (abs101543, Absin), Rabbit anti-C1QC Polyclonal Antibody (A9227, Abclonal) and Mouse anti-HLA-E Monoclonal Antibody (abs154728, Absin); panel 2 including Rabbit anti-XCR1 (D2F8T) Monoclonal Antibody (44665S, CST), Mouse anti-HLA-E Monoclonal Antibody (abs154728, Absin), Rabbit anti-HLA-DQA1 Polyclonal Antibody (16918-1-AP, Proteintech) and Rabbit anti-HLA-DPA1 Polyclonal Antibody (16109-1-AP, Proteintech); panel 3 including Rabbit anti-LAMP3 Polyclonal Antibody (A2895, Abclonal) and Mouse anti-HLA-E Monoclonal Antibody (abs154728, Absin).

Techniques: Sequencing, RNA Sequencing, Migration

Journal: iScience

Article Title: Single-cell transcriptomics reveals the role of antigen presentation in liver metastatic breast cancer

doi: 10.1016/j.isci.2024.108896

Figure Lengend Snippet: Clinical verification of alteration and function of FCN3 + macrophage, cDC1 and LAMP3 + DC in LM (A) Ratio of FCN3 + C1QC + HLA-E + cells, XCR1 + HLA-E + cells, XCR1 + HLA-DQA1 + cells, XCR1 + HLA-DPA1 + cells and LAMP3 + HLA-E + cells in normal mammary ducts or lobules, primary tumor of invasive ductal breast carcinoma (above phase 3C, staged by AJCC 6 th Edition) and liver metastasis. (B) Representative immunofluorescence appearance of FCN3 + C1QC + HLA-E + cells, XCR1 + HLA-E + cells, XCR1 + HLA-DQA1 + cells, XCR1 + HLA-DPA1 + cells and LAMP3 + HLA-E + cells (above phase 3c, staged by AJCC 6 th Edition). Panel 1 (left): blue for DAPI, green for FCN3, purple for C1QC and red for HLA-E; panel 2 (middle): blue for DAPI, green for XCR1, red for HLA-E, purple for HLA-DQA1 and yellow for HLA-DPA1; panel 3 (right): blue for DAPI, green for LAMP3 and red for HLA-E. Scale bar: 20 μm. (C) Analysis of OS between patients with high and low levels of MHC signature score filtered by top and bottom 25% values of XCR1 and LAMP3 from the TCGA-BRCA cohort. (D) Analysis of OS between patients with high and low levels of MHC signature score filtered by top and bottom 25% values of LAMP3 from the TCGA-LIHC cohort. In bar plots, Student’s t test was performed. p < 0.05∗, p < 0.01∗∗, p < 0.001∗∗∗, p < 0.0001∗∗∗∗. In survival analysis, Log rank was used to calculate the p value, p < 0.05 was considered to be significant.

Article Snippet: The sections were stained for three panels by using 4-color Novo-Light multiplex fluorescence immunohistochemistry: panel 1 including Rabbit anti-FCN3 (C-term) Polyclonal Antibody (abs101543, Absin), Rabbit anti-C1QC Polyclonal Antibody (A9227, Abclonal) and Mouse anti-HLA-E Monoclonal Antibody (abs154728, Absin); panel 2 including Rabbit anti-XCR1 (D2F8T) Monoclonal Antibody (44665S, CST), Mouse anti-HLA-E Monoclonal Antibody (abs154728, Absin), Rabbit anti-HLA-DQA1 Polyclonal Antibody (16918-1-AP, Proteintech) and Rabbit anti-HLA-DPA1 Polyclonal Antibody (16109-1-AP, Proteintech); panel 3 including Rabbit anti-LAMP3 Polyclonal Antibody (A2895, Abclonal) and Mouse anti-HLA-E Monoclonal Antibody (abs154728, Absin).

Techniques: Immunofluorescence

Journal: iScience

Article Title: Single-cell transcriptomics reveals the role of antigen presentation in liver metastatic breast cancer

doi: 10.1016/j.isci.2024.108896

Figure Lengend Snippet:

Article Snippet: The sections were stained for three panels by using 4-color Novo-Light multiplex fluorescence immunohistochemistry: panel 1 including Rabbit anti-FCN3 (C-term) Polyclonal Antibody (abs101543, Absin), Rabbit anti-C1QC Polyclonal Antibody (A9227, Abclonal) and Mouse anti-HLA-E Monoclonal Antibody (abs154728, Absin); panel 2 including Rabbit anti-XCR1 (D2F8T) Monoclonal Antibody (44665S, CST), Mouse anti-HLA-E Monoclonal Antibody (abs154728, Absin), Rabbit anti-HLA-DQA1 Polyclonal Antibody (16918-1-AP, Proteintech) and Rabbit anti-HLA-DPA1 Polyclonal Antibody (16109-1-AP, Proteintech); panel 3 including Rabbit anti-LAMP3 Polyclonal Antibody (A2895, Abclonal) and Mouse anti-HLA-E Monoclonal Antibody (abs154728, Absin).

Techniques: Recombinant, Lysis, Staining, Software