Fig. 3: FOXN3 promotes the instability of Smad4 and blocks Smad-mediated transcriptional response. | Nature Communications

Fig. 3: FOXN3 promotes the instability of Smad4 and blocks Smad-mediated transcriptional response.

From: Phosphorylation of FOXN3 by NEK6 promotes pulmonary fibrosis through Smad signaling

Fig. 3

a A volcano plot illustrating the differential expression of genes in the lungs of mice following FOXN3 overexpression. b Gene ontology analysis was performed on the RNA sequencing data obtained from the lungs of both WT and Fxon3LSL KI mice. GO enrichment analysis of the differentially expressed genes was conducted using the Wallenius non-central hypergeometric distribution, which accounts for gene length bias. A p-value threshold of ≤ 0.05 was established for enrichment significance. c KEGG and heatmap analyses of the RNA sequencing data were conducted to illustrate the expression changes of Smad downstream-regulated genes. d Immunoblot analysis was conducted to assess the effect of siRNA-mediated FOXN3 knockdown on the levels of Smad proteins in both A549 and primary ATII cells upon TGF-β treatment (10 ng/ml, 16 hr). The cells were treated with 0.05% fetal bovine serum (FBS) for 8 h prior to TGF-β treatment and collected 48 hrs post-siRNA transfection. TCL: total cell lysate. e Immunoblot analysis was conducted to assess the protein expression levels of Smads and FOXN3 in the lungs of both WT and Fxon3LSL KI mice (n = 4). (fh) ChIP assays were conducted in A549 cells with or without TGF-β treatment (10 ng/ml, 16 hr) to investigate the effect of siRNA-mediated FOXN3 knockdown on the transcriptional recruitment of Smad proteins to the promoters of their target genes. The cells were collected 48 hrs post-transfection. Representative data from three independent experiments (n = 3). i ChIP assays were conducted in A549 cells with or without TGF-β treatment (10 ng/ml, 16 hr) to examine the distribution of FOXN3 on the promoters of Smad target genes. Representative data from three independent experiments (n = 3). The data (fh) were assessed by one-way ANOVA, and the data (i) was assessed by a two-tailed Student’s t test. All data was shown as the mean ± SD. The blotting data (d) are representative of two independent experiments and were quantified using ImageJ software.

Back to article page