Figure 5.
GFP+ and GFP− liver macrophages are substantially similar to each other and liver macrophages from unmanipulated control animals. (A) The expression of GFP in CD11b+ major histone compatitibilty class II–positive liver macrophages expressing each of the listed surface proteins was examined by flow cytometry. There were no significant differences by 2-way ANOVA. (B) Surface protein phenotypes were displayed as Simplified Presentation of Incredibly Complex Evaluations pie charts, in which each slice is a particular combination of markers as defined by the arc legend. Plots were not significantly different by permutation test. (C) Examples of chromatin accessibility at gene loci by ATAC-seq. Traces are averages of 3 animals for each group. (D) PCA analyzing variation in reads across consensus peaks in ATAC-seq samples. (E) The number of differentially accessible regions associated with a gene between either GFP+ cells and controls or GFP− cells and controls.

GFP+ and GFP liver macrophages are substantially similar to each other and liver macrophages from unmanipulated control animals. (A) The expression of GFP in CD11b+ major histone compatitibilty class II–positive liver macrophages expressing each of the listed surface proteins was examined by flow cytometry. There were no significant differences by 2-way ANOVA. (B) Surface protein phenotypes were displayed as Simplified Presentation of Incredibly Complex Evaluations pie charts, in which each slice is a particular combination of markers as defined by the arc legend. Plots were not significantly different by permutation test. (C) Examples of chromatin accessibility at gene loci by ATAC-seq. Traces are averages of 3 animals for each group. (D) PCA analyzing variation in reads across consensus peaks in ATAC-seq samples. (E) The number of differentially accessible regions associated with a gene between either GFP+ cells and controls or GFP cells and controls.

Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal