Fig. 2: Confocal analysis of CSF-cN distribution in the mouse spinal cord. | Communications Biology

Fig. 2: Confocal analysis of CSF-cN distribution in the mouse spinal cord.

From: Cerebrospinal fluid-contacting neurons are sensory neurons with uniform morphological and region-specific electrophysiological properties in the mouse spinal cord

Fig. 2

A Confocal images of tdTomato fluorescence in 3 weeks-old Pkd2l1-Cre::tdTomato mouse at cervical, thoracic, and lumbar levels of the SC. tdTomato fluorescence alone (inverted greyscale image), merge images (orange hot) and DAPI (blue). Scale bar = 200 μm in Left panels; 20 μm in Middle and Right panels. B) Summary boxplots with whiskers of CSF-cN distribution in dorsal (Dors), lateral (Lat), and ventral (Vent) quadrants at cervical (B1), thoracic (B2) and lumbar (B3) levels of the SC (see Methods section for details; color code as for Fig. A). (C: N = 3, n = 50; T: N = 6, n = 11 and L: N = 4, n = 9). ANOVA.lme: F = 229.4, df=8 and 261, p(F) < 2.2 × 10−16 and Tukey (EMM) post hoc test to compare Dorsal vs. Lateral and Ventral and Lateral vs. ventral within the different regions: ****p < 0.0001 in C, T and L segments. There is no difference in the distribution within quadrant between C, T and L regions. C CSF-cN density per 10 μm of SC tissue at cervical, thoracic and lumbar levels. Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test: χ2 = 18.745, df=2, p(χ2) = 8.505 × 10−5 and post hoc pairwise comparisons using Wilcoxon rank sum test with continuity correction: C vs. T, p = 0.64140; C vs. L, p = 6.9 × 10−4 and T vs. L, p = 2.7 × 10−4. D CSF-cN distribution at the different SC levels. Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA followed by Dunn’s post hoc test, *p < 0.05; **p < 0.0; ns: not significative. E Cumulative distribution function plots of the euclidean distances of CSF-cNs to the cc lumen at the SC levels of interest. Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. *p < 0.05; ***p < 0.001. Dots represent each slice in Figs. 2B, C and each individual cell in Fig. 2D.

Back to article page