Fig. 4: MET is essential for LECT2-mediated innate immune responses.

a HepG2 cells were transfected with FLAG-tagged LECT2 plasmid and MET plasmid. Co-immunofluorescence staining of LECT2 using an anti-FLAG antibody and MET using an anti-MET antibody in HepG2 cells. DAPI was used to stain nuclei. b qRT-PCR analysis of IFNB1 in MET-knockdown HepG2 cells at 12 h after HCV-RNA transfection in the presence or absence of r-LECT2. Results were normalised to those of ACTB. Data shown are means of 3 technical replicates ± SEM. ***p < 0.001, **p = 0.002, not significant (ns) by two-way ANOVA with Tukey’s multiple comparison test. c Immunoblot analysis of MET, RIG-I, p-IRF3 and β-actin in MET-knockdown HepG2 cells at 12 h after HCV-RNA transfection in the presence or absence (Nont) of r-LECT2. d Immunoblot analysis of MET and GAPDH in HepG2-WT and HepG2-MET-KO cells. e (left) qRT-PCR analysis of IFNB1 in HepG2-WT and HepG2-MET-KO cells at 12 h after miR-122 and H77S.3/GLuc-RNA co-transfection in the presence or absence (Nont) of r-LECT2. Data shown are means of 3 technical replicates ± SEM. ***p < 0.001, not significant (ns) by two-way ANOVA with Tukey’s multiple comparison test. e (right) GLuc activity in HepG2-WT and HepG2-MET-KO cells at 12 h after miR-control (miR-cont) or miR-122 and H77S.3/GLuc-RNA co-transfection in the presence or absence (Nont) of r-LECT2. Data shown are means of 3 technical replicates ± SEM. ***p < 0.001, not significant (ns) by two-way ANOVA with Tukey’s multiple comparison test. f qRT-PCR analysis of IFNB1 and EMCV in HepG2-WT and HepG2-MET-KO cells at 24 h after EMCV infection in the presence or absence (Nont) of r-LECT2. Data shown are means of 3 technical replicates ± SEM. Not significant (ns) by two-way ANOVA with Tukey’s multiple comparison test. Source data are provided as a Source data file.