Fig. 6: NANOG mice show enhanced functional recovery after nerve transection.

A Depiction of mouse toe spread reflex and assigned scores. B Quantification of toe-spread reflex from Week 0-16 after nerve transection; for weeks 0-5: WT- n = 11, NANOG- n = 12 biological replicates; for weeks 8-16: WT- n = 5, NANOG-n = 6 biological replicates. C Setup for needle EMG recordings. D A typical EMG waveform recorded in non-transected control mice. E Representative waveforms from WT and NANOG transected limbs at 5-and 16- weeks after injury. The start of M-wave is marked by red arrows. F Schematic depicting the amplitude of the CMAP M-wave. G Quantification of normalized EMG amplitude from weeks 0-16 after nerve transection in WT and NANOG mice. H EMG amplitude at 5 weeks and (I) 16 weeks post nerve injury. J Schematic depicting the area of an M-wave. K Quantification of normalized EMG area from weeks 0-16 after nerve transection in WT and NANOG mice. L CMAP M-wave area at 5 weeks and (M) 16 weeks post nerve injury. N Schematic of latency time. O Quantification of normalized EMG latency time from weeks 0-16 after nerve transection in WT and NANOG mice. P Latency time at 5 weeks and (Q) 16 weeks post nerve injury; In graphs G–Q, for weeks 0-5: WT- n = 11, NANOG- n = 12 biological replicates; for weeks 8-16: WT-n = 5, NANOG- n = 6 biological replicates. R Setup for muscle force measurement in live mice using the Aurora force transducer. Maximum force recorded at stimulation frequency of 150 Hz from both transectedand non-transected limbs at (S) 5 weeks and (T) 16 weeks. Force in the transected side was normalized to the average force of the control non-transected limb; For both WT and NANOG, n = 6 biological replicates at 5 weeks (S). and n = 5 biological replicates at 16 weeks (T). For B, G, K and L, statistics performed using two-way ANOVA with Sidak’s test. For H, I, L, M, P, Q, S, and T, statistics performed using unpaired t-test. All data are presented as Mean ± SEM. Source data are provided as a Source Data file.