Fig. 7: De novo PrP conversion precedes the formation of FL-PrPd and is inhibited by transcriptional silencing of Cdc42 and dynamins. | Nature Communications

Fig. 7: De novo PrP conversion precedes the formation of FL-PrPd and is inhibited by transcriptional silencing of Cdc42 and dynamins.

From: Prion protein conversion at two distinct cellular sites precedes fibrillisation

Fig. 7: De novo PrP conversion precedes the formation of FL-PrPd and is inhibited by transcriptional silencing of Cdc42 and dynamins.The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.

A Quantitative analysis of contact times against the proportion of cells with evident de novo PrP conversion (Myc + 6D11) and initially infected (6D11) cells, respectively. G70 PrP-expressing cells were infected with RML for the specified times (post infection: p.i.), gently washed to remove the inoculum, fixed and labelled. For comparison, the proportion of infected cells after two weeks of tissue culture following exposure with prions at the specified contact times, data reblotted from Fig. 5G, are shown (violet bars). Mock-infected background-corrected data from 81 frames of about 60 cells per frame were scored as specified in “Methods” section. B Relationship between cell contact times after RML infection and the detection of 5B2-positive FL-PrPd. G70 PrP-expressing cells were infected with RML brain homogenate at a 10−4 dilution for the time periods specified above. Cells were subsequently fixed and labelled with 5B2 and 6D11, followed by fluorescence conjugated secondary antibodies. As above, the number of double-positive cells was scored. C Inhibition of prion infection by gene silencing of dynamins and Cdc42. G70 myc Prnp-expressing cells were transfected with siPools against the specified targets, followed by infection with exosomes. Levels of prion infection were determined from 4 independent experiments with at least 24 replicates per gene target by SCA and expressed as mean values ± SEM, relative to cells transfected with non-targeting control (1.0 ± 0.013). For statistical analysis Kruskal–Wallis test with Dunn’s multiple comparisons was conducted (**p < 0.001). For gene names see Supplementary Table 5. Source data are provided as a Source Data file.

Back to article page