EMBO/SourceData huggingface dataset:
Figure 3(A) Experimental set up and (right) Kaplan Meier survival plot of NeuT;Apln+/+ and NeuT;Apln-/- mice with mammary cancer, left untreated (control) or treated with the indicate dose of the broad VEGFR blocker sunitinib. NeuT;Apln+/+ Control (n=8), NeuT;Apln-/- Control (n=11), NeuT;Apln+/+ Sunitinib (n=11), NeuT;Apln-/- Sunitinib (n=12); *P<0.05; Log rank test. Mice were sacrificed when the tumor size reached 1cm3, following ethical guidelines. The dotted line indicates 50% of survival.(B) Percentages (mean ± S.E.M.) of tumor burden in mammary glands of untreated (control) and sunitinib-treated NeuT;Apln+/+ and NeuT;Apln-/- mice, assessed 4 weeks after tumor onset. NeuT;Apln+/+ Control (n=6), NeuT;Apln-/- Control (n=8), NeuT;Apln+/+ Sunitinib (n=5), NeuT;Apln-/- Sunitinib (n=5); *P<0.05; ***P<0.001; one-way ANOVA. Representative H&E images are shown for each genotype in the right panels. Scale bars = 1000 μm (large panels) and 50 μm (insets).(C) Tumor volumes of untreated (control) and sunitinib-treated NeuT;Apln+/+ and NeuT;Apln-/- mammary tumors, size-matched at 20-70mm3 and followed over time by MRI analysis; NeuT;Apln+/+ Control (n=7), NeuT;Apln-/- Control (n=5), NeuT;Apln+/+ Sunitinib (n=5), NeuT;Apln-/- Sunitinib (n=6) mice per group; Lines represent nonlinear fit of tumor growth. Box and arrow indicate the time point used for analysis in panel D. (D) Mitotic counts (mean ± S.E.M.) and representative H&E images of mammary tumors in untreated (control) ­and sunitinib-treated NeuT;Apln+/+ and NeuT;Apln-/- mice, assessed 6 weeks after tumor onset.; NeuT;Apln+/+ Control (n=7), NeuT;Apln-/- Control (n=6), NeuT;Apln+/+ Sunitinib (n=9), NeuT;Apln-/- Sunitinib (n=4) tumors per group; *P<0.05; one-way ANOVA to sunitinib-treated NeuT;Apln-/-. White arrows indicate mitotic figures. Scale bars = 50 μm(E) Tumor volumes, followed over the indicated time, of orthotopically injected E0771 shRenilla cells left untreated (control) or treated three times a week from day 8 after tumor injection with an Apelin antagonist alone (MM54, 0.4μg/g), sunitinib alone (60mg/kg) or a combination of both. Tumor volumes were measured using calipers and are shown as mean tumor volumes ± S.E.M. E0771 shRenilla Control (n=6), MM54 (n=5), Sunitinib (n=5), Sunitinib+MM54 (n=5); *P<0.05, **P<0.01, ***P<0.001, two-way ANOVA.
Figure 4(B) Representative MRI images; Scale bar = 5mm and (C) quantification (mean ± S.E.M.) of relative tumor blood volume (rTBV) over time after NeuT+ mammary tumors were size-matched at 20-70mm3 (0 weeks). Treatments and genotypes are indicated. NeuT;Apln+/+ Control (n=4), NeuT;Apln-/- Control (n=4), NeuT;Apln+/+ Sunitinib (n=5), NeuT;Apln-/- Sunitinib (n=5); **P<0.01, and ***P<0.001 compared to untreated NeuT;Apln+/+ mice and #P<0.05 compared to untreated control NeuT;Apln-/- mice; two-way ANOVA. Of note, in NeuT;Apln+/+ mice, only 2 tumors could be analyzed after 6 weeks as some mice had to be sacrificed due to the large tumor sizes following ethical guidelines. Thus, we did not perform any statistical analysis on the 6 weeks timepoints.(D) Analysis (mean values ± S.E.M.) of CD31+ area (x104 μm2)/field, number of dilated tumor vessels and percentage of alphaSMA+ area per CD31+ blood vessels in mammary tumors of untreated (control) and sunitinib-treated NeuT;Apln+/+ and NeuT;Apln-/- mice, assessed 6 weeks after mammary tumors were size-matched. NeuT;Apln+/+ Control (n=4), NeuT;Apln-/- Control (n=4), NeuT;Apln+/+ Sunitinib (n=5), NeuT;Apln-/- Sunitinib (n=4); *P<0.05; **P<0.01; ***P<0.001; one-way ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis test. (E) Representative immunofluorescence and immunohistochemistry images from Fig. 5D quantification. Dilated blood vessels are marked by a red asterisk. DAPI (blue) is shown as a counterstain to visualize nuclei. Scale bars = 100 μm (upper panels), 50 μm (middel panels) and 20 μm (lower panels).
Figure 5(A) Percentages of CA9+ cells adjacent to CD31+ tumor blood vessels in untreated (control) and sunitinib-treated NeuT;Apln+/+ and NeuT;Apln-/- mice, 6 weeks after mammary tumors were size-matched. NeuT;Apln+/+ Control (n=4), NeuT;Apln-/- Control (n=4), NeuT;Apln+/+ Sunitinib (n=4), NeuT;Apln-/- Sunitinib (n=4); 100-200 peri-vascular intra-tumoral regions per group were counted. ***P<0.001; one-way ANOVA. Right panels show representative immunofluorescent images. Areas limited by dotted white lines indicate CA9+ areas. Scale bars = 50 μm.(B) Representative MRI images; Scale bar = 5mm and (C) quantification (mean ± S.E.M.) of vessel permeability (K2) in NeuT+ mammary tumors followed over time. Treatments and genotypes are indicated. NeuT;Apln+/+ Control (n=4), NeuT;Apln-/- Control (n=5), NeuT;Apln+/+ Sunitinib (n=4), NeuT;Apln-/- Sunitinib (n=5); ***P<0.001, compared to untreated control NeuT;Apln+/+ mice and §P<0.05 compared to sunitinib-treated NeuT;Apln+/+ mice; two-way ANOVA. Of note, in NeuT;Apln+/+ mice, only 2 tumors could be analysed after 6 weeks as some mice had to be sacrificed due to the large tumor sizes following ethical guidelines. Thus we did not perform any statistical analysis on the 6 weeks timepoints.
Figure 6(A) Number of metastatic lung foci in untreated (control) and sunitinib-treated (60mg/kg, three times a week from tumor initiation) NeuT;Apln+/+ or NeuT;Apln-/- mice, assessed 6 weeks after mammary tumors were size-matched. Data of individual lung sections and means (black bars) are shown. Right panels show representative H&E images, where black arrows and insets indicate metastatic foci. Scale bars = 1000 μm (large panels) and 50 μm (insets). *P<0.05, **P<0.01; ***P<0.001; Kruskal-Wallis test; n=3 mice per cohort and three sections per lung were analysed.(B) Kaplan Meier survival plot for distant metastasis free survival from the KM-plotter database (Data Ref: Győrffy et al, 2013) for high and low Apelin (APLN)-expressing groups in human breast cancer. Patients were split by the median. Affymetrix Apelin ID 222856_at.(C) Kaplan-Meier plot for progression-free survival stratifying RCC patients with high and low APELIN serum levels 3-5 months after the start date of sunitinib treatment. *P=0.0367; Log rank test.(D) Kaplan Meier plots for progression-free survival in RCC patients stratified into groups of high or low levels of APELIN and VEGF. Cut-off levels were set by the median. Serum was analysed 3-5 months after the start date of sunitinib treatment. *P<0.05, **P<0.01; Log rank test.
Figure 1A. Cytosolicnon-heme iron levels in wild-type mice subjected to sham or I/R procedure two days after surgery. Two-tailed unpaired T-test was performed. N=4 mice for each group.B. Mitochondrialnon-heme iron levels in wild-type mice subjected to sham or I/R procedure two days after surgery. * P=0.024 with two-tailed unpaired T-test. N=4 mice for each group.C. Mitochondrial labile iron in H9c2 cells with or without H2O2 treatment measured using RPA fluorescence. * P<0.0001 with two-tailed unpaired T-test. N=8 independent samples for PBS group and N=10 independent samples for H2O2 group.D. Cytosoliclabile iron in H9c2 cells with or without H2O2 treatment measured using calcein fluorescence. * P=0.0042 with two-tailed unpaired T-test. N=11 independent samples in each group.E. Mitochondrialiron in humancardiac tissue sample from non-failing hearts and from hearts with ischemic cardiomyopathy (ISCM). * P=0.041 with two-tailed unpaired T-test. N=4 independent samples in each group.F. Cytosoliciron in humancardiac tissue sample from non-failing hearts and from hearts with ischemic cardiomyopathy (ISCM). Two-tailed unpaired T-test was performed. N=4 independent samples in each group. All data are expressed as mean ± SEM.
Figure 2A. Cytosolic iron in H9c2 cells preloaded with radioactive 55Fe and treated with indicated iron chelators. ANOVA followed by post-hoc Tukey test was performed. * P=7.9E-8 PBS vs. DFO. * P=9.4E-6 BPD vs. DFO. * P=0.003 PBS vs. BPD. N=4 independent samples for PBS group and N=6 independent samples for other groups.B. Nuclear iron in H9c2 cells preloaded with radioactive 55Fe and treated with indicated iron chelators. ANOVA followed by post-hoc Tukey test was performed. * P=0.0003 PBS vs. BPD. * P=5.58E-5 PBS vs. DFO. N=4 independent samples for PBS group and N=6 independent samples for other groups.C. Representative RPA fluorescence staining for labile mitochondrial iron in H9c2 cells with indicated iron chelator treatment. Scale bar = 100μm.D. Labile mitochondrial iron measured by RPA fluorescence in H9c2 cells with indicated iron chelator treatment. ANOVA followed by post-hoc Tukey test was performed.* P=0.016 PBS vs. BPD. * P=0.04 DFO vs. BPD. N=8 independent samples for each group.E. H2O2-induced cell death in H9c2 cells with indicated treatments. ANOVA followed by post-hoc Tukey test was performed.* P=5E-8 PBS-PBS vs. PBS-H2O2. * P=4E-6 PBS-H2O2 vs. DFO-H2O2. * P=5E-8 PBS-H2O2 vs. BPD-H2O2. * P=1E-7 BPD-H2O2 vs. DFO-H2O2. N=6 independent samples for each group.F. Labile mitochondrial iron in H9c2 cells with indicated treatment. PBS with and without H2O2 data were copied from Fig 1C. ANOVA followed by post-hoc Tukey test was performed. * P=1E-8 PBS-PBS vs. PBS-H2O2. * P=3E-9 PBS-H2O2 vs. BPD-H2O2. N=8 independent samples for PBS-PBS, and N=12 for the other groups. All data are expressed as mean ± SEM. N.S. = not signigicant.
Figure 3A. Mitochondrial non-heme iron in ABCB8 NTG and TG mice. N=4 mice for NTG and 6 mice for TG. * P=0.021 with two-tailed unpaired T-test.B. Cytosolic non-heme iron in ABCB8 NTG and TG mice. N=4 mice for NTG and 6 mice for TG. Two-tailed unpaired T-test was performed.C. Baseline ejection fraction of littermate ABCB8 NTG and TG mice. N=6 mice in each group. Two-tailed unpaired T-test was performed.D. Baseline fractional shortening of littermate ABCB8 NTG and TG mice. N=6 mice in each group. Two-tailed unpaired T-test was performed.E. Lipid peroxidation products in hearts of TG and NTG mice. N=6 mice in each group. Two-tailed unpaired T-test was performed.F. Relative expression of antioxidant genes in NTG and TG mice. N=6 mice in each group. Two-tailed unpaired T-test was performed. All data are expressed as mean ± SEM. N.S. = not signigicant.
Figure 4A. Cardiac function in ABCB8 NTG and TG mice undergoing sham or I/R procedure. ANOVA followed by post-hoc Tukey test was performed for each time point. * P<0.05 compared with TG-sham at the same time point. $ P<0.05 compared with NTG-I/R at the same time point. § P<0.05 compared with NTG-sham at the same time point. N=5 mice for NTG-sham and NTG-I/R, and N=6 mice for TG-sham and TG-I/R. Exact P-values are included in Appendix Table S3.B. Representative images of TUNEL staining for mice with indicated genotype undergone indicated procedure. Scale bar = 100μm.C. Quantification of apoptosis in ABCB8 TG and NTG mice with indicated procedure. ANOVA followed by post-hoc Tukey test was performed. * P=0.035. N=4 mice for TG-I/R, and N=6 mice for all other groups.D. Nppa expression in mice subjected to sham or I/R procedure. ANOVA followed by post-hoc Tukey test was performed. * P=3.24E-4 NTG-sham vs. NTG-I/R. * P=0.002 TG-sham vs. TG-I/R. * P=8E-6 NTG-I/R vs. TG-I/R. N=5 mice for NTG-sham and NTG-I/R, and N=6 mice for TG-sham and TG-I/R.E. Nppb expression in mice subjected to sham or I/R procedure. ANOVA followed by post-hoc Tukey test was performed. * P<1E-8 NTG-sham vs. NTG-I/R. * P=0.032 NTG-I/R vs. TG-I/R. N=5 mice for NTG-sham and NTG-I/R, and N=6 mice for TG-sham and TG-I/R.F. Myh7 expression in mice subjected to sham or I/R procedure. ANOVA followed by post-hoc Tukey test was performed. * P=0.04 NTG-sham vs. NTG-I/R. * P=0.034 NTG-I/R vs. TG-I/R. N=5 mice for NTG-sham and NTG-I/R, and N=6 mice for TG-sham and TG-I/R. All data are expressed as mean ± SEM. N.S. = not signigicant.
Figure 5A. Representative H&amp;amp;E staining of peri-infarct area demonstrated reduced cellular injury in ABCB8 TG mice after I/R. Scale bar = 115μm.B. Representative H&amp;amp;E and Masson Trichrome (MT) staining in mouseheart 28 days after indicated procedure. Scale bar = 1100μm.C. Quantification of tissue fibrosis in ABCB8 NTG and TG mice subjected to I/R. * P=0.047 with two-tailed unpaired T-test. 2-3 sections from each mice were quantified; N=4 mice for NTG and N=6 mice for TG.D. Nppa expression in mice subjected to sham or I/R procedure. ANOVA followed by post-hoc Tukey test was performed. * P=0.006 NTG-sham vs. NTG-I/R. * P=0.015 NTG-I/R vs. TG-I/R. N=5 mice for NTG-sham and TG-I/R, N=6 mice for TG-sham, and N=4 mice for NTG-I/R.E. Nppb expression in mice subjected to sham or I/R procedure. ANOVA followed by post-hoc Tukey test was performed. * P=0.001 NTG-sham vs. NTG-I/R. * P=0.004 NTG-I/R vs. TG-I/R. N=5 mice for NTG-sham and TG-I/R, N=6 mice for TG-sham, and N=4 mice for NTG-I/R.F. Myh7 expression in mice subjected to sham or I/R procedure. ANOVA followed by post-hoc Tukey test was performed. * P=0.002 NTG-sham vs. NTG-I/R. * P=0.011 NTG-I/R vs. TG-I/R. N=5 mice for NTG-sham and TG-I/R, N=6 mice for TG-sham, and N=4 mice for NTG-I/R. All data are expressed as mean ± SEM. N.S. = not signigicant.
Figure 6A. Mitochondrial non-heme iron in wild-type mice treated with vehicle control or indicated iron chelator for 7 days. ANOVA followed by post-hoc Tukey test was performed. * P=0.03. N=4 mice for PBS and DFO, and N=5 mice for BPD.B. Cytosolic non-heme iron in wild-type mice treated with vehicle control or indicated iron chelator for 7 days. ANOVA followed by post-hoc Tukey test was performed. * P=5E-4 PBS vs. DFO. * P=0.01 DFO vs. BPD. P=0.06 PBS vs. DFO. N=4 mice for PBS and DFO, and N=5 mice for BPD.C. Nuclear non-heme iron in wild-type mice treated with vehicle control or indicated iron chelator for 7 days. N=4 mice for PBS and DFO and N=5 mice for BPD.D. Cardiac function in wild-type mice treated with vehicle control or indicated iron chelator for 7 days. N=5 mice for each group.E. Cardiac function of chelator-treated mice after I/R. ANOVA followed by post-hoc Tukey test was performed for each time point. * P<0.0001 compared to PBS-I/R group at the same time point. # P<0.0001 compared to PBS-sham group at the same time point. Exact P-values are included in Appendix Table S3. N=5 micePBS-sham and BPD-I/R, N=6 mice for all other groups.F. Representative Hematoxylin Eosin (Hamp;amp;E) and Masson Trichrome (MT) staining of heart sections in mice with indicated chelator treatment undergone sham or I/R. Scale bar = 1100μm. Bar graph represent quantification of tissue fibrosis. ANOVA followed by post-hoc Tukey test was performed. * P=0.048. 2-3 sections from each mice were quantified, N=4 mice for PBS, N=5 mice for DFO and N=6 mice for BPD.G. Nppa expression in mice subjected to sham or I/R procedure. ANOVA followed by post-hoc Tukey test was performed. * P=0.002 PBS-sham vs. PBS-I/R. * P=0.02 DFO-sham vs. DFO I/R. * P=0.007 PBS-I/R vs. BPD I/R. N=6 mice for PBS-sham and DFO-sham, N=4 mice for all other groups.H. Nppb expression in mice subjected to sham or I/R procedure. ANOVA followed by post-hoc Tukey test was performed. * P= 0.0007 PBS-sham vs. PBS-I/R. * P= 0.014 DFO-sham vs. DFO I/R. * P= 0.003 PBS-I/R vs. BPD I/R. N=6 mice for PBS-sham and DFO-sham, N=4 mice for all other groups.I. Myh7 expression in mice subjected to sham or I/R procedure. ANOVA followed by post-hoc Tukey test was performed. * P=0.0001 PBS-sham vs. PBS-I/R. * P=0.038 DFO-sham vs. DFO I/R. * P=0.006 PBS-I/R vs. BPD I/R. N=6 mice for PBS-sham and DFO-sham, N=4 mice for all other groups. All data are expressed as mean ± SEM. N.S. = not signigicant.
Figure 7A. Cardiac mitochondrial iron in ABCB8 KO and WT mice with indicated treatment harvested 4 weeks after the tamoxifen treatment. ANOVA followed by post-hoc Tukey test was performed. * P=0.02 WT-vehicle vs. WT-BPD. * P= 0.001 WT-vehicle vs. ABCB8 KO-vehicle. * P=0.004 ABCB8 KO-vehicle vs. ABCB8 KO-BPD. N=8 for WT-vehicle and N=7 for all other groups.B. Ejection fraction in ABCB8 KO and WT mice with indicated treatment 4 weeks after gene knockout. ANOVA followed by post-hoc Tukey test was performed. * P<1E-8 WT-vehicle vs. ABCB8 KO-vehicle. * P<1E-8 ABCB8-vehicle vs. ABCB8 KO-BPD. N=8 for WT-vehicle and N=7 for all other groups.C. Fractional shortening in ABCB8 KO and WT mice with indicated treatment 4 weeks after gene knockout. ANOVA followed by post-hoc Tukey test was performed. * P<1E-8 WT-vehicle vs. ABCB8 KO-vehicle. * P<1E-8 ABCB8-vehicle vs. ABCB8 KO-BPD. N=8 for WT-vehicle and N=7 for all other groups.D. Nppa expression in mice subjected to sham or I/R procedure. ANOVA followed by post-hoc Tukey test was performed. * P=0.017 WT-vehicle vs. ABCB8 KO-vehicle. * P=0.01 ABCB8-vehicle vs. ABCB8 KO-BPD. N=8 for WT-vehicle and N=7 for all other groups.E. Nppb expression in mice subjected to sham or I/R procedure. ANOVA followed by post-hoc Tukey test was performed. * P=0.001 WT-vehicle vs. ABCB8 KO-vehicle. * P=0.0003 ABCB8-vehicle vs. ABCB8 KO-BPD. N=8 for WT-vehicle and N=7 for all other groups.F. Myh7 expression in mice subjected to sham or I/R procedure. ANOVA followed by post-hoc Tukey test was performed. * P=0.011 WT-vehicle vs. ABCB8 KO-vehicle. * P=0.045 ABCB8-vehicle vs. ABCB8 KO-BPD. N=8 for WT-vehicle and N=7 for all other groups. All data are expressed as mean ± SEM. N.S. = not signigicant.
Figure 8A. Representative western blot demonstrating ABCB8 overexpression in H9c2 cells. EV = empty vector. N=3 independent samples for each group.B. Complex I ROS production in mitochondria with ABCB8 downregulation with or without rotenone. ANOVA followed by post-hoc Tukey test was performed. N= 6 independent samples for each group.C. Complex III ROS production in mitochondria with ABCB8 downregulation with or without antimycin A. ANOVA followed by post-hoc Tukey test was performed. N= 6 independent samples for each group.D. Complex I ROS production in mitochondria with ABCB8 overexpression with or without rotenone. EV= empty vector. ANOVA followed by post-hoc Tukey test was performed. N=9 independent samples for EV-baseline and N=8 independent samples for the other groups.E. Complex IIIROS production in mitochondria with ABCB8 overexpression with or without antimycin A. EV= empty vector. ANOVA followed by post-hoc Tukey test was performed. N=9 independent samples for EV-baseline and N=8 independent samples for the other groups.F. Mitochondrial ROS in H9c2 cells with various treatments with or without oxidative stress. N=6 independent samples for each group. ANOVA followed by post-hoc Tukey test was performed. * P=2E-8 PBS-PBS vs. PBS-H2O2. * P=2E-8 DFO- H2O2 vs. BPD-H2O2.G. Mitochondrial membrane potential as measured by TMRE intensity in H9c2 cells treated with indicated iron chelator with or without oxidative stress. N= 6 independent samples for each group. ANOVA followed by post-hoc Tukey test was performed. * P=1E-8 PBS-PBS vs. PBS-H2O2. * P=1.8E-8 DFO-PBS vs. DFO-H2O2.H. The levels of lipid peroxidation products in ABCB8 KO mice with or without chelator treatment. N=4 mice for WT-vehicle, N=6 mice for ABCB8 KO-vehicle, and N=5 mice for all other groups. ANOVA followed by post-hoc Tukey test was performed. * P=0.004 WT-vehicle vs. ABCB8 KO-vehicle. * P=1E-6 ABCB8 KO-vehicle vs. ABCB8 KO-BPD.I. Lipid peroxidation products in ABCB8 TG and NTG mice two days after I/R. N=6 mice for NTG-sham, and N=4 mice for the other groups. ANOVA followed by post-hoc Tukey test was performed. * P=0.024 NTG-sham vs. NTG-I/R. * P=0.016 NTG-I/R vs. TG-I/R. All data are expressed as mean ± SEM. N.S. = not signigicant.
Figure 9A. Mitochondrial aconitase activity in H9c2 cells with or without ABCB8 overexpression and treated with or without H2O2. N=4 independent samples for each group. ANOVA followed by post-hoc Tukey test was performed. * P=0.0004 EV-PBS vs. EV-H2O2. * P=0.0001 EV-H2O2 vs. ABCB8-H2O2.B. Complex I activity in H9c2 cells with or without ABCB8 overexpression and treated with or without H2O2. N=6 independent samples for each group. ANOVA followed by post-hoc Tukey test was performed. * P=0.0005 EV-PBS vs. EV-H2O2. * P=0.00001 EV-H2O2 vs. ABCB8-H2O2.C. Complex II activity in H9c2 cells with or without ABCB8 overexpression and treated with or without H2O2. N=6 independent samples for each group. ANOVA followed by post-hoc Tukey test was performed. * P=0.001 EV-PBS vs. EV-H2O2. * P=0.001 EV-H2O2 vs. ABCB8-H2O2.D. Complex IV activity in H9c2 cells with or without ABCB8 overexpression and treated with or without H2O2. N=6 independent samples for each group. ANOVA followed by post-hoc Tukey test was performed. * P=0.0008 EV-PBS vs. EV-H2O2. * P=0.0006 EV-H2O2 vs. ABCB8-H2O2.E. Mitochondrial aconitase activity in H9c2 cells treated with indicated iron chelators with or without H2O2. N=4 independent samples in each group. ANOVA followed by post-hoc Tukey test was performed. * P=0.036 PBS-PBS vs. PBS-H2O2. * P=0.0047 DFO-PBS vs. DFO-H2O2. * P=0.035 PBS- H2O2 vs. BPD-H2O2.F. Complex I activity in H9c2 cells treated with indicated iron chelators with or without H2O2. N=6 independent samples for each group. ANOVA followed by post-hoc Tukey test was performed. * P=0.0004 PBS-PBS vs. PBS-H2O2. * P=0.0003 DFO-PBS vs. DFO-H2O2. * P<0.0001 PBS- H2O2 vs. BPD-H2O2.G. Complex II activity in H9c2 cells treated with indicated iron chelators with or without H2O2. N=6 independent samples for each group. ANOVA followed by post-hoc Tukey test was performed. * P=0.0001 PBS-PBS vs. PBS-H2O2. * P<0.0001 DFO-PBS vs. DFO-H2O2. * P<0.0001 PBS- H2O2 vs. BPD-H2O2.H. Complex IV activity in H9c2 cells treated with indicated iron chelators with or without H2O2. N=6 independent samples for each group. ANOVA followed by post-hoc Tukey test was performed. * P=0.02 PBS-PBS vs. PBS-H2O2. * P=0.0009 DFO-PBS vs. DFO-H2O2. * P=0.006 PBS- H2O2 vs. BPD-H2O2. All data are expressed as mean ± SEM.
Figure 1Adult Swiss mice (n = 11 Veh; 15 AβOs) received a single i.c.v. injection of vehicle or 10 pmol AβOs and were assessed in a glucose tolerance test (2 g glucose/kg body weight, i.p.) 7 days after injection. Blood levels of glucose were measured at several time points following glucose administration. Bar graph represents areas under the curves in the time course plot. Data are representative of three independent experiments with similar results. Left panel: ***P = 0.0006, two-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni post hoc test; right panel: *P = 0.0207, Student's t-test.Insulin tolerance test (1 IU insulin/kg body weight, i.p.) (n = 7 Veh; 8 AβOs). Blood levels of glucose were measured at several time points following insulin administration. Bar graph represents the kinetic constants for glucose disappearance (Kitt) calculated from the time course plot. Data are representative of two independent experiments with similar results. Left panel: *P = 0.0456 and ***P = 0.0007, two-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni post hoc test; right panel: **P = 0.0033, Student's t-test.Glucose tolerance test (2 g glucose/kg body weight, i.p.) in mice 7 days after a single intracaudal (C; n = 8 animals/group) or intraperitoneal (D; n = 13 animals/group) injection of AβOs (10 pmol) or vehicle.Glucose tolerance test (2 g glucose/kg body weight, i.p.) in 8- to 13-month-old APP/PS1 mice (E; n = 9 animals/group) or 6-month-old 3xTg-AD male mice (F; n = 10 WT; 9 3xTg), or their corresponding wild-type littermates. Bar graph represents areas under the curves in the time course plots. In (E), left panel: *P = 0.0466, two-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni post hoc test; right panel: &amp;amp;amp;P = 0.072, Student's t-test. In (F), left panel: *P = 0.0171 and #P = 0.0781, two-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni post hoc test; right panel: *P = 0.0101, Student's t-test.