Extended Data Fig. 6: cDC2As and cDC2Bs are bona fide cDC subsets.

a, (left) schematic depicting strategy for labelling of cDC lineages in DNGR-1 lineage tracer mice (C9a^tdTOM). Figure was generated with BioRender. (right) FACS analysis showing % Tomato⁺ bone marrow progenitors identified as in reference⁵⁴. b, FACS analysis showing % Tomato⁺ cells in the indicated cDC and pre-cDC subtypes and MDCs as reference for a poorly-labelled lineage. c, FACS analysis showing relative number of the indicated cDC and pre-cDC subtypes in WT versus Flt3L-deficient mice. Number of monocytes and MDCs from different tissues is also shown as reference for a Flt3L-independent lineage. Tissues analysed are indicated at the left of the graphs. Each dot represents one mouse (n = 8), and data were pooled from two experiments, in c data are expressed as fold-difference from WT (means ± SEM). Gating and quantifications come from UMAPs as shown in Extended Data Fig. 7b–d (see later) for the bone marrow and Extended Data Fig. 4c–e for the spleen, MLN, lung and liver. Monocytes and MDCs were identified as in ref. ¹⁸. Each dot represents one biological replicate (n = 8), and data are a pool of two experiments (means ± SEM). For panels (a, c) one-way ANOVA (with Tukey correction) was used for comparison of the groups against the labelling of MDPs or against the WT control. P values are indicated on top of the graphs.