Fig. 4: Comparison of morphological analysis between PT and PTRC.
From: A novel model of light-induced middle cerebral artery occlusion and recanalization in mice
a Representative image of an astrocyte analyzed with the Sholl method for PTRC group (n = 6). b The graph shows the distribution of the number of intersections for each radius in the 5 ROIs for PTRC group (mean ± SEM). *p value based on two-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s post hoc test (6 µm: IC vs IBZIL p < 0.0001, IBZIL vs RZIL p = 0.022; 9 µm: IC vs IBZIL p = 0.0059; 12 µm: IC vs IBZIL p < 0.0001, IBZIL vs RZIL p = 0.0001, IBZIL vs IBZCL p < 0.0001, IBZIL vs ICCL p = 0.0163; 15 µm: IC vs IBZIL p < 0.0001, IBZIL vs RZIL p < 0.0001, RZIL vs IC p = 0.0478, IBZIL vs IBZCL p < 0.0001, IBZIL vs ICCL p < 0.0001; 18 µm: IC vs IBZIL p < 0.0001, IBZIL vs RZIL p = 0.0013, IBZIL vs IBZCL p < 0.0001, IBZIL vs ICCL p < 0.0001; 21 µm: IC vs IBZIL p < 0.0001, IBZIL vs RZIL p < 0.0001, IBZIL vs IBZCL p = 0.0001, IBZIL vs ICCL p < 0,0001; 24 µm: IC vs IBZIL p = 0.0001, IBZIL vs IBZCL p < 0.0001, IBZIL vs ICCL p < 0.0001; 27 µm: IC vs IBZIL p < 0.0001, IBZIL vs IBZCL p < 0.0001, IBZIL vs ICCL p < 0.0001; 30 µm: IC vs IBZIL p < 0.0001, IBZIL vs IBZCL p < 0.0001, IBZIL vs ICCL p < 0.0001; 33 µm: IC vs IBZIL p < 0.0001, IBZIL vs RZIL p = 0.0125, IBZIL vs IBZCL p = 0.0014 IBZIL vs ICCL p < 0.0001). c The graph shows the distribution of the number of intersections for each radius normalized by the Sham control group in the 4 ROIs for both experimental groups (in green PT n = 6 and in blue PTRC n = 6). *p value based on two-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s post hoc test (27 µm: PT vs PTRC RZIL p = 0.0005; 30 µm: PT vs PTRC IBZIL p < 0,0001; PT vs PTRC RZIL p < 0.0001; PT vs PTRC ICCL p < 0.0001; 33 µm: PT vs PTRC IBZIL p < 0.0001; PT vs PTRC RZIL p < 0.0001; PT vs PTRC IBZCL p < 0.0001). d Representative image of the same astrocyte presented in (a), analyzed with the Skeleton analysis. The graphs (mean ± SEM) represent the morphological features of astrocytes in the 5 ROIs(Total Branch Length: IC = 141.3 ± 3,9, IBZIL = 235.2 ± 5.9, RZIL = 176.0 ± 6.5, IBZCL = 159.7 ± 1.6, ICCL = 137.6 ± 7.5; Branches: IC = 19.2 ± 0.5, IBZIL = 39.0 ± 2.0, RZIL = 25.5 ± 1.3, IBZCL = 24.0 ± 0.8, ICCL = 18.7 ± 1.4; Junctions: IC = 9.0 ± 0.2, IBZIL = 19.4 ± 0.9, RZIL = 12.2 ± 0.4, IBZCL = 12.0 ± 0.2, ICCL = 9.4 ± 0.9; End-points: IC = 10.2 ± 0.2, IBZIL = 19.1 ± 1.2, RZIL = 13.4 ± 0.6, IBZCL = 12.1 ± 0.4, ICCL = 10.4 ± 0.6). *p value based on one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s post hoc test for the intragroup statistical analysis (Total Branch Length: IC vs IBZIL p < 0.0001, IC vs RZIL p = 0.0012; IBZIL vs RZIL p < 0.0001; IBZIL vs IBZCL p < 0.0001; IBZIL vs ICCL p < 0.0001; RZIL vs ICCL p = 0.0003; Branches: IC vs IBZIL p < 0.0001, IC vs RZIL p = 0.0206; IBZIL vs RZIL p < 0.0001; IBZIL vs IBZCL p < 0.0001; IBZIL vs ICCL p < 0.0001; RZIL vs ICCL p = 0.0108; Junctions: IC vs IBZIL p < 0.0001, IC vs RZIL p = 0.0106; IC vs IBZCL p = 0.0143; IBZIL vs RZIL p < 0.0001; IBZIL vs IBZCL p < 0.0001; IBZIL vs ICCL p < 0.0001; RZIL vs ICCL p = 0.0320; IBZCL vs ICCL p = 0.0424). e The graphs show total branch length, number of branches, number of actual junctions (merging neighbor junction voxels) with an arbitrary number of projecting branches. All morphological parameters are normalized by the Sham group for both experimental groups (in green PT n = 6 and in blue PTRC n = 6). The graphs are shown as mean ± SEM. *p value based on two-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s post hoc test for the intergroup statistical analysis (Total Branch Length: PT vs PTRC IBZIL p = 0.0010, PT vs PTRC RZIL p = 0.0127; Branches: PT vs PTRC IBZIL p < 0.0001, PT vs PTRC RZIL p < 0.0001, PT vs PTRC IBZCL p < 0.0001, PT vs PTRC ICCL p < 0.0001; Junctions: PT vs PTRC IBZIL p = 0.0002, PT vs PTRC RZIL p < 0.0001, PT vs PTRC IBZCL p < 0.0001, PT vs PTRC ICCL p < 0.0001). IC ischemic core, IBZIL ischemic border zone ipsi-lateral, RZIL remote zone ipsi-lateral, IBZCL ischemic border zone contra-lateral, ICCL ischemic core contra-lateral.
