EMBO/SourceData huggingface dataset:
Figure 4(A) The cell lysates of control or BECLIN1 siRNA transfected THP-1 cells expressing GFP or GFP-IRGM were subjected to immunoblotting with indicated antibodies.(B) The cell lysates of control or ATG5 siRNA transfected THP-1 cells expressing GFP or GFP-IRGM were subjected to immunoblotting with indicated antibodies.(C-D) qRT-PCR analysis with RNA isolated from control or BECLIN1 siRNA transfected THP-1 cells expressing 3X-Flag epitope or Flag-IRGM as indicated.qRT-PCR analysis with RNA isolated from control or ATG5 siRNA transfected THP-1 cells expressing 3X-Flag epitope or Flag-IRGM as indicated.qRT-PCR analysis with RNA isolated from control or ATG5 siRNA transfected THP-1 cells expressing 3X-Flag epitope or Flag-IRGM as indicated.(G-H) qRT-PCR analysis with RNA isolated from control or p62 siRNA or BECLIN1 siRNA transfected HT29 cells expressing 3X-Flag epitope or Flag-IRGM as indicated.Co-IP analysis of the interaction between GFP IRGM with (I) Flag-p62 or Flag-NDP52 or Flag-NBR1 in HEK293T cell lysates.Co-IP analysis of the interaction between GFP IRGM with (J) Flag-Optineurin or Flag-TAX1BP1 in HEK293T cell lysates.(K-M) Co-IP analysis of the interaction between GFP IRGM with (K) Flag-cGAS, (L) Flag-RIG-I, (M) Flag-TLR3 in control siRNA or p62 siRNA transfected HEK293T cell lysates.(N) The cell lysates of control or p62 siRNA transfected THP-1 cells expressing GFP or GFP- IRGM (as indicate) were subjected to immunoblotting with indicated antibodies.(O) The qRT-PCR analysis with RNA isolated from control or p62 transfected THP-1 cells expressing 3X-Flag epitope or Flag-IRGM as indicated.(P-R) Co-IP analysis of the interaction between HA-p62 and (P) Flag-RIG-I, (Q) Flag-TLR3, (R) Flag-cGAS in the absence and presence of GFP or GFP-IRGM in HEK293T cell lysates.
Figure 5(A) Representative confocal images of Irgm1+/+ and Irgm1-/- mouse BMDMs processed for IF analysis with Tom20 antibody. Scale bar, 5 µm. Zoom panels are digital magnifications.(B) The graph depicts the percentage of cells with swollen/rounded mitochondria in Irgm1+/+ and Irgm1-/- mouse BMDMs.(C) Representative confocal (STED) images of Irgm1+/+ and Irgm1-/- mouse BMDMs processed for IF analysis with Tom20 and Parkin antibodies. Line profile: Co-localization analysis using line intensity profiles.(D) Representative confocal (STED) images of Irgm1+/+ and Irgm1-/- mouse BMDMs processed for IF analysis with Tom20 and Pink1 antibodies. Line profile: Co-localization analysis using line intensity profiles.(E) Representative confocal images of control siRNA and IRGM siRNA transfected THP-1 cells processed for IF analysis with Ubiquitin (green) and TOM20 (red) antibodies. Scale bar, 10 µm.(F) Western blot analysis of mitochondrial fraction of control siRNA and IRGM siRNA transfected THP-1 cells, probed with indicated antibodies.(G) Western blot analysis of mitochondrial fraction of Irgm1+/+ and Irgm1-/- mouse BMDM cells, probed with indicated antibodies (n=2 mice).(H) Western blot analysis of mitochondrial fraction of Irgm1+/+ and Irgm1-/- mouse BMDM cells untreated or treated with Bafilomycin A1 (300 nM, 3 h), probed with indicated antibodies.(I) Western blot analysis of mitochondrial fraction of control siRNA and IRGM siRNA transfected THP-1 cells untreated or treated with Bafilomycin A1 (300 nM, 3 h), probed with indicated antibodies.(J) Seahorse XF Cell Mito stress test for analysis of mitochondrial function in Irgm1+/+ and Irgm1-/- mouse BMDM cells. The experiments were performed using the XF24 extracellular flux analyzer, and the flow chart showed the measurement of oxygen consumption rate (OCR)(K) Representative confocal images of control and IRGM siRNA transfected THP-1 cells stained with CMXRos red dye.(L) Flow cytometry analysis of control siRNA and IRGM siRNA transfected THP-1 cells stained with CMXRos red dye (10 nM, 30 mins). (M) Graph depicts the normalized mean fluorescent intensity of control and IRGM knockdown THP-1 cells stained with CMXRos.(N) Representative dot plot showing flow cytometry analysis of control and IRGM siRNA knockdown THP-1 cells stained with JC-1 dye (2 µM, 30 mins). At low mitochondrial membrane potential, JC-1 is predominantly a monomer that yields green fluorescence, whereas at mitochondrial membrane potential the dye aggregates producing a red to orange colored emission.(P) Representative flow cytometry analysis of control and IRGM siRNA transfected THP-1 cells stained with MitoSox red dye (1µM, 20 min). The percentage of control and IRGM knockdown cells with increased red fluorescence (mitochondrial ROS generation) is depicted.(Q) Representative flow cytometry analysis of control and IRGM siRNA transfected THP-1 cells stained with CellRox-green and CellRox-orange dye (1µM, 30 min).
Figure 6(A) Representative confocal images of Irgm1+/+ and Irgm1-/- mouse BMDMs processed for IF analysis with Tom20 (red) and dsDNA (green) antibody.(B) Representative STED microscopy images of control THP-1 cells processed for IF analysis with cGAS (green), dsDNA (red), and Lamin B1 (cyan) antibodies. (C) The graph depicts the percentage of cells with micronuclei in control siRNA and IRGM siRNA knockdown THP-1 cells.(D-E) Representative STED microscopy images of Irgm1-/- mouse BMDMs (D) transfected with mCherry-cGAS and immunostained with dsDNA (green) antibody. The white line depicts the periphery of the cells. Scale bar, 3 µm. (E) The graph depicts the percentage of cells with micronuclei in Irgm1+/+ and Irgm1-/- mouse BMDMs.(F) The qRT-PCR analysis with cytosolic DNA (minus mitochondria) isolated from Irgm1+/+ and Irgm1-/- mouse BMDMs.(G) The qRT-PCR analysis with cytosolic DNA (minus mitochondria) isolated from control and IRGM siRNA transfected HT-29 cells.(H) The qRT-PCR analysis with cytosolic DNA (minus mitochondria) isolated from control or IRGM shRNA or EtBr treated IRGM shRNA HT-29 (Rho0) cells.(I) The qRT-PCR analysis with total RNA isolated from control or IRGM shRNA or EtBr treated IRGM shRNA HT-29 (Rho0) cells.(J) The qRT-PCR analysis with cytosolic DNA (minus mitochondria) isolated from Irgm1+/+ and Irgm1-/- mouse BMDMs transfected with DNase I (15 μg, 6hr).(K) The qRT-PCR analysis with RNA isolated from control and IRGM siRNA knockdown THP-1 cells electroporated with DNase I (5 μg, 1hr) as indicated.(L-M) Representative confocal images of Irgm1+/+ and Irgm1-/- mouse BMDMs processed for IF analysis with (L) dsRNA (green) and Tom20 (red) antibodies. (M) The graph depicts the percentage of Irgm1+/+ and Irgm1-/- mouse BMDMs with dsRNA aggregates.(N) Representative confocal images of Irgm1-/- mouse BMDMs processed for IF analysis with RIG-I (red) and dsRNA (green) antibodies. Line profile: Co-localization analysis using line intensity profiles.Representative confocal images of Irgm1-/- mouse BMDMs processed for IF analysis with (O) Mda5 (red) and dsRNA (green) antibodies Co-localization analysis using line intensity profiles.Representative confocal images of Irgm1-/- mouse BMDMs processed for IF analysis with (P) Mda5 (red), dsRNA (green) and Tia1 (blue) antibodies (Scale bar, 3 µm). Line profile: Co-localization analysis using line intensity profiles.
Figure 7(A) qRT-PCR analysis with total RNA isolated from Irgm1+/+ and Irgm1-/- mouse BMDMs transfected with control siRNA or cGAS siRNA or RIG-I siRNA or cGAS siRNA and RIG-I siRNA as indicated.(B) qRT-PCR analysis with total RNA isolated from HT-29 cells transfected with control siRNA or IRGM siRNA or doubly transfected with IRGM siRNA and cGAS siRNA or IRGM siRNA and RIG-I siRNA or transfected with three siRNAs as indicated.(C) qRT-PCR analysis with total RNA isolated from HT-29 cells transfected with control siRNA or IRGM siRNA or doubly transfected with IRGM siRNA and STING siRNA or IRGM siRNA and MAVS siRNA or transfected with all the three siRNAs as indicated.(D) qRT-PCR analysis with total RNA isolated from HT-29 cells transfected with control siRNA or IRGM siRNA or doubly transfected with IRGM siRNA and MDA5 siRNA as indicated.(E) qRT-PCR analysis with total RNA isolated from HT-29 cells transfected with control siRNA or IRGM siRNA or doubly transfected with IRGM siRNA and IRF3 siRNA as indicated.(F) qRT-PCR analysis with total RNA isolated from HT-29 cells transfected with control siRNA or IRGM siRNA or doubly transfected with IRGM siRNA and STAT1 siRNA or IRGM siRNA and STAT2 siRNA as indicated.
Figure 1RAW264.7 macrophages were infected with Mtb WT or Mtb ΔRD1 for 24 h, Ca WT or Ca YL, and Lm WT or Lm Δhly for 60 min. (A) Levels of Rab8A and Rab8A pT72 phosphorylation were analysed by Western blot and quantified by densitometry. Data represent the mean ± SEM of three independent biological experiments. One-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett's test compared to WT strains. ns= non-significant; *p ≤0.05; **p ≤0.01.(B) Recruitment of endogenous LRRK2 and EGFP-Rab8A to M. tuberculosis (Mtb) was visualised by confocal microscopy. Scale bar = 5 μm.(C) C. albicans (Ca) was analysed by confocal microscopy. Scale bar = 5 μm. Bottom panels show quantitative analysis of marker association to the respective pathogen. Data represents the mean ± SEM of two to four independent biological replicates.(D) L. monocytogenes (Lm) was analysed by confocal microscopy. Scale bar = 5 μm. Bottom panels show quantitative analysis of marker association to the respective pathogen. Data represents the mean ± SEM of two to four independent biological replicates.
Figure 2(A) RAW264.7 macrophages were treated with 1 mM LLOMe for the indicated time and Rab8A and Rab8A pT72 levels were analysed by Western blot.(B) WT or LRRK2 KO macrophages were treated with 1 mM LLOMe for 30 min and Rab8A and Rab8A pT72 levels were analysed by Western blot.(C) Macrophages were pre-treated with either 1 μM GSK inh or 0.1 μM MLi-2 and then treated with 1 mM LLOMe for 30 min. Rab8A and Rab8A pT72 levels were analysed by Western blot.(D-F) RAW264.7 macrophages were treated with 1 mM LLOMe for 30 min. (D) Endogenous LRRK2 and (E) Rab8A recruitment to LAMP-1 positive compartments was visualised by immunofluorescence. Scale bar = 10 μm. (F) Quantification of D-E. Data represents the mean ± SEM of three independent biological experiments.LRRK2 WT or LRRK2 KO macrophages were pre-treated or not with 1 μM GSK2578215A and treated with 1 mM LLOMe for 30 min. The number of LRRK2 per cell were monitored by immunofluorescence and high-content imaging. Scale bar = 10 μm. Data represent the mean ± SEM of three to four independent biological experiments. One-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett's test against the untreated WT control. ns=non-significant; **p≤0.01.LRRK2 WT or LRRK2 KO macrophages were pre-treated or not with 1 μM GSK2578215A and treated with 1 mM LLOMe for 30 min. The number of Rab8A positive vesicles per cell were monitored by immunofluorescence and high-content imaging. Scale bar = 10 μm. Data represent the mean ± SEM of three to four independent biological experiments. One-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett's test against the untreated WT control. ns=non-significant; **p≤0.01.
Figure 3(A) RAW264.7 macrophages were electroporated with EGFP-Rab8A and treated with 1 mM LLOMe for 30 min. Intracellular distribution of Galectin-3, CHMP4B or LC3B was visualised by immunofluorescence. Scale bar = 5 μm.(B) Macrophages were electroporated with EGFP-Rab8A and RFP-Galectin-3. Cells were then treated with 1 mM of LLOMe and monitored by live cell imaging. Snapshots at the indicated time points after LLOMe addition are shown. Scale bar = 5 μm.(C) RAW264.7 macrophages were treated with 1 mM of LLOMe and LRRK2, Rab8A, CHMP4B, Galectin-3 and LC3B foci over time was analysed by high-content imaging. Data shows the mean ± SEM of five biological replicates.RAW264.7 macrophages were pre-treated with 10 μM BAPTA-AM for 1 hr, and treated with 1 mM LLOMe for 30 min. (D) CHMP4B recruitment was monitored by immunofluorescence and high-content imaging. Scale bar = 10 μm.(E) Rab8A pT72 phosphorylation was analysed by Western blot.(F) LRRK2 and (G) Rab8A recruitment was monitored by immunofluorescence and high-content imaging. Scale bar = 10 μm. (H) Quantification of E and F.
Figure 4RAW264.7 WT, LRRK2 KO or Rab8A macrophages pre-treated with 1 μM GSK2578215A (GSK inh) were treated with 1 mM LLOMe for 30 min. CHMP4B vesicle numbers were analysed by immunofluorescence and high content imaging. Scale bar = 20 μm. Right panels show the quantification of number of CHMP4B positive vesicles per cell. Mean ± SEM of three independent biological experiments. ns=non-significant, *p≤0.05, **p≤0.01 by One-way ANOVA followed by Sidak's multiple comparisons test.RAW264.7 WT, LRRK2 KO or Rab8A macrophages pre-treated with 1 μM GSK2578215A (GSK inh) were treated with 1 mM LLOMe for 30 min. Galectin-3 vesicle numbers were analysed by immunofluorescence and high content imaging. Scale bar = 20 μm. Right panels show the quantification of number of Galectin-3 positive vesicles per cell. Mean ± SEM of three independent biological experiments. ns=non-significant, *p≤0.05, **p≤0.01 by One-way ANOVA followed by Sidak's multiple comparisons test.Live cell imaging of LysoTracker positive spots in WT, LRRK2 KO macrophages treated with 1 mM LLOMe, followed by lysosomal recovery after LLOMe wash-out. One representative experiment out of three shown. Differences between slopes in the LLOMe treatment window were estimated using linear regression.Live cell imaging of LysoTracker positive spots in WT, Rab8A KO macrophages treated with 1 mM LLOMe, followed by lysosomal recovery after LLOMe wash-out. One representative experiment out of three shown. Differences between slopes in the LLOMe treatment window were estimated using linear regression.
Figure 5WT or LRRK2 KO RAW264.7 macrophages, RAW264.7 macrophages pre-treated with 1 μM GSK2578215A (GSK inh) and WT or Rab8A KO RAW264.7 macrophages were treated with 1 mM LLOMe for 30 min. LC3B positive vesicle numbers were analysed by immunofluorescence and high content imaging. Scale bar = 20 μm. Right panels show quantification of number of positive vesicles per cell. Data show the mean ± SEM of three to four biological replicates. ns=non-significant, *p≤0.05, **p≤0.01 by One-way ANOVA followed by Sidak's multiple comparisons test.WT or LRRK2 KO RAW264.7 macrophages, RAW264.7 macrophages pre-treated with 1 μM GSK2578215A (GSK inh) and WT or Rab8A KO RAW264.7 macrophages were treated with 1 mM LLOMe for 30 min. ubiquitin K63 positive vesicle numbers were analysed by immunofluorescence and high content imaging. Scale bar = 20 μm. Right panels show quantification of number of positive vesicles per cell. Data show the mean ± SEM of three to four biological replicates. ns=non-significant, *p≤0.05, **p≤0.01 by One-way ANOVA followed by Sidak's multiple comparisons test.(C) Representative images of LC3B/LAMP-1 double positive endolysosomes in control and LLOMe treated macrophages. Scale bar = 10 μm. (D) Analysis of the % of LC3B/LAMP-1 double positive endolysosomes in LLOMe treated macrophages. Data shows mean ± SEM of three independent biological experiments. *p≤0.05, ***p≤0.001 by Student's t-test.
Figure 6WT and LRRK2 KO RAW264.7 macrophages were infected with Mtb for 24 h, Galectin-3 and LC3B recruitment was analysed by immunofluorescence and high content imaging. Scale bar = 10 μm. Data show the mean ± SEM of two to three experiments. ns=non-significant, *p≤0.05 by Student's t-test.WT and LRRK2 KO RAW264.7 macrophages were infected with Ca for 60 min Galectin-3 and LC3B recruitment was analysed by immunofluorescence and high content imaging. Scale bar = 10 μm. Data show the mean ± SEM of two to three experiments. ns=non-significant, *p≤0.05 by Student's t-test.WT and LRRK2 KO RAW264.7 macrophages were infected with Lm for 60 min. Galectin-3 and LC3B recruitment was analysed by immunofluorescence and high content imaging. Scale bar = 10 μm. Data show the mean ± SEM of two to three experiments. ns=non-significant, *p≤0.05 by Student's t-test.WT and LRRK2 KO RAW264.7 macrophages were infected with Mtb WT or Mtb ΔRD1 Growth measured for 72 h Data show the mean ± SEM of three independent biological experiments. ns=non-significant, *p≤0.05, **p≤0.01 by One-way ANOVA followed by Sidak's multiple comparisons test.WT and LRRK2 KO RAW264.7 macrophages were infected with Ca WT or Ca YL Growth measured for 2 h. Data show the mean ± SEM of three independent biological experiments. ns=non-significant, *p≤0.05, **p≤0.01 by One-way ANOVA followed by Sidak's multiple comparisons test.WT and LRRK2 KO RAW264.7 macrophages were infected with Lm WT or Lm Δhly. Growth measured for 2 h. Data show the mean ± SEM of three independent biological experiments. ns=non-significant, *p≤0.05, **p≤0.01 by One-way ANOVA followed by Sidak's multiple comparisons test.
Figure 7Monocyte-derived macrophages from healthy controls and PD patients carrying the G2019S (Donor 2-3) or R1441C (Donor 1) LRRK2 mutation were pre-treated with 0.1 μM MLi-2 and treated with 1 mM LLOMe for 30 min. (A) Rab8A and Rab8A pT72 levels were analysed by Western blot. (B) Rab8A and Galectin-3 positive vesicle numbers were analysed by immunofluorescence. Data show the mean ± SEM of biological replicates. Scale bar = 20 μm. ns=non-significant, **p≤0.01, by One-way ANOVA followed by Sidak's multiple comparisons test.
Figure 1(A) Diauxic growth of WT E. coli (NCM3722) in minimal media containing glucose and acetate, bacterial density measured as optical density (OD600). Growth on glucose is captured by the exponential fit (blue dashed line), and proceeds until glucose runs out (black dashed line) at time = 0 h. This is followed by a period of growth-lag lasting ~3.5h before exponential growth resumes on acetate (red dashed line).(D) Lag-times for controlled titration of aceBA expression using an inducer construct in strain NQ1350 (inset). Addition of chlorotetracycline (cTc) removes the tetR repression and induces aceBA expression. As the expression of aceB/aceA during the response (inducer added at time = 0h) is increased, lag times decrease. Bar plot shows mean lag-times (N=3 biological repeats) for different inducer concentration with error bars denoting the Standard Deviations (SD).
Figure 2(A) A plasmid system (inset) is used to control the expression of the non-required gene lacZ using the strain NQ1389. lacZ expression was induced using cTc to varying degrees at the moment of glucose depletion (time = 0 h) using the indicated range of cTc concentrations. Diauxic growth conditions with glucose and acetate, same as in Fig. 1.
Figure 3(B) Lag-times fall reciprocally with the allocation towards required proteins (the fraction of mRNA encoding for required proteins) during the shift. Allocation of translation activity towards different proteins are represented by the weight of red and gray arrows (top).
Figure 4(B) For the various gene categories in panel A, the temporal kinetics of expression during the diauxic shift is plotted. Time 0 indicates time when glucose runs out. The series of RNA-seq through the growth transition was performed once.(C) Steady-state growth in glucose and acetate for the WT and the motility deletion strains ΔfliC and Δflh. Growth rate differences between WT and the mutants are not significant in glucose (p-value >0.05), but are significant for growth in acetate (p-values<0.02). Additional growth conditions are shown in Fig. EV6.(D, E) Growth transitions for the motility deletion strains ΔfliC and ΔflhD are substantially faster than that for the WT strain, with (D) showing representative growth kinetics of the three strains and (E) showing mean lag-times and standard error of four independent biological replicates. Lag-times for WT are significantly different from that of ∆fliC (p-value 0.01) and ∆flhD (p-value 0.004).(F) ∆fliC shows a 2-fold increase (p-value 0.17) and ∆flhD shows a 3-fold increase (p-value 0.02) in aceB expression compared to WT, as measured by qPCR.
Figure 5Diauxic growth kinetics for growth on glucose and a different secondary carbon sources for the WT (black) and the motility deletion strains ΔfliC and ΔflhD strain (magenta and green).Diauxic growth kinetics for growth on glucose and a different secondary carbon sources for the WT (black) and the motility deletion strains ΔfliC and ΔflhD strain (magenta and green).
Figure 1qRT-PCR analysis of Foxp1-4 in murine ECs freshly isolated from P11 mesentery (n = 6 mice, individual data points shown). Data are presented as mean relative expression (normalized to Gapdh) ± SD. Transcript levels for each transcript are presented relative to levels in LECs. P, Student's t-test. nd, not detected.
Figure 2Immunofluorescence (C) and qRT-PCR analysis (D) of HDLECs grown under static conditions or exposed to OSS for 48 h (n = 3 independent experiments). Data are presented as mean ± SD. P, Student's t-test.
Figure 3Whole-mount immunofluorescence of P7 mesenteries, showing efficient FOXP2 depletion in Foxp2flox/-;Tie2-Cre vessels. Dotted line indicates vessel width. Quantification of mesenteric collecting lymphatic vessel width in P7 Foxp2flox/-;Tie2-Cre and littermate controls (n = vessels [mice], as indicated).Lymphatic valves in P7 mesenteric vessels of control and Foxp2flox/-;Tie2-Cre mice. A spectrum of defects in the mutants ranging from shortened integrin-α9+FN-EIIIA+ valve leaflets (middle panels) to a complete loss of leaflets (right panels) are shown. Quantification of the proportion of valves with integrin-α9+ leaflets (G), and leaflet length (H) in P7 Foxp2flox/-;Tie2-Cre and littermate controls (n = valves [mice], as indicated). Leaflet length = 0 corresponds to valves with no leaflets.
Figure 4Whole-mount immunofluorescence (A) and quantification of NRP2 staining intensity (B) in P6 mesenteric lymphatic vessels of Foxp2flox/-;Tie2-Cre and littermate control mice (n = vessels [mice], as indicated).RNAscope-based whole-mount in situ hybridization (C) and quantification of Efnb2 transcript levels (D) in P7 mesenteric lymphatic vessels of Foxp2flox/-;Tie2-Cre and littermate control mice (n = vessels [mice], as indicated).
Figure 5Whole-mount immunofluorescence of P6 mesenteries, showing valve defects in the mutant vessels. Quantification of lymphatic valve numbers (C), valve leaflet length (D) and vessel width (E) in Foxp2flox/flox;Prox1-CreERT2 and littermate control mice (n = vessels (C, E) or valves (D) [mice], as indicated).
Figure 6qRT-PCR analysis of FOXP2, FOXC2 and GJA4 expression in control (siCTRL) and FOXP2 or FOXC2 siRNA-treated HDLECs (n = 6 (FOXP2, FOXC2) or n = 3 (GJA4) independent experiments).Top panels: whole-mount immunofluorescence of E18 Foxc2flox/flox;Prox1-CreERT2 and littermate control mesenteries, showing downregulation of FOXP2 in Foxc2 deficient vessels. Bottom panels: extraction of nuclear FOXP2 staining (grey) using IMARIS surface mask generated based on PROX1 staining (green). Unmasked FOXP2 staining is shown in magenta. Quantification of FOXP2 levels in mesenteric lymphatic vessels of Foxc2flox/flox;Prox1-CreERT2 and control littermates based on nuclear FOXP2 signals as in (B) (n = vessels [mice], as indicated).Whole-mount immunofluorescence of P8 mesenteric lymphatic vessels of Foxp2flox/-;Tie2-Cre and littermate control mice showing loss of organized FOXC2high valve regions but unaltered expression of FOXC2 in Foxp2 deficient vessels. Whole-mount immunofluorescence of lymphatic valves in P7 mesenteries of control and Foxp2flox/-;Tie2-Cre mice showing NFATc1 subcellular localization. Note predominantly nuclear localization of NFATc1 in control valves (left panels), but cytoplasmic localization (middle panels, 3 out of 5 mice) or downregulation of NFATc1 (right panels, 2 out of 5 mice) in the mutant valves. Quantification of protein localization in NFATc1+ lymphatic valves from (D) (n = valves [mice], as indicated).