Figure 3

cGAS-STING pathway inactivation attenuates DNA damage response.

(A) Representative immunofluorescence images of DNA damage. Scale bar = 10 µm. (B) Quantification of DNA damage in skin (n_WT = 6, n_tert-/- = 6, n_sting-/- = 6, n_{tert-/- sting-/-} = 6; WT vs tert-/- p = 0.00001, sting-/- vs tert-/- p = 0.000001, WT vs tert-/- sting-/- p = 0.000001, sting-/- vs tert-/- sting-/- p = 0.000003). (C) Quantification of DNA damage in testis (n_WT = 6, n_tert-/- = 6, n_sting-/- = 6, n_{tert-/- sting-/-} = 6, N = 5–6, WT vs tert-/- p = 0.000001, sting-/- vs tert-/- p = 0.000001, WT vs tert-/- sting-/- p = 0.000001, sting-/- vs tert-/- sting-/- p = 0.000002). (D) Quantification of DNA damage in kidney marrow (n_WT = 6, n_tert-/- = 6, n_sting-/- = 6, n_{tert-/- sting-/-} = 6; WT vs tert-/- p = 0.00004, sting-/- vs tert-/- p = 0.0001, WT vs tert-/- sting-/- p = 0.0001, sting-/- vs tert-/- sting-/- p = 0.0003). (E) Quantification of DNA damage in intestine (n_WT = 5, n_tert-/- = 5, n_sting-/- = 5, _{tert-/- sting-/-} = 5; WT vs tert-/- p = 0.006, sting-/- vs tert-/- p = 0.008, WT vs tert-/- sting-/- p = 0.007, sting-/- vs tert-/- sting-/- p = 0.0095). (F) Representative western blot images of p53. (G) Quantification of p53 levels in the skin (n_WT = 4, n_tert-/- = 4, n_sting-/- = 4, n_{tert-/- sting-/-} = 4, WT vs tert-/- p = 0.000001, sting-/- vs tert-/- p = 0.000001, tert-/- vs tert-/- sting-/- p = 0.000001). (H) Quantification of p53 levels in the testis (n_WT = 4, n_tert-/- = 4, n_sting-/- = 4, n_{tert-/- sting-/-} = 4, WT vs tert-/- p = 0.050, tert-/- vs tert-/- sting-/- p = 0.048). (I) Quantification of p53 levels in the kidney marrow (n_WT = 4, n_tert-/- = 4, n_sting-/- = 4, n_{tert-/- sting-/-} = 4, sting-/- vs tert-/- p = 0.017, tert-/- vs tert-/- sting-/- p = 0.022). (J) Quantification of p53 levels in the intestine (n_WT = 5, n_tert-/- = 5, n_sting-/- = 5, n_{tert-/- sting-/-} = 5, WT vs tert-/- p = 0.009, sting-/- vs tert-/- p = 0.006, tert-/- vs tert-/- sting-/- p = 0.006). Data were presented as the mean ± s.e.m.; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, using a one-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey test. Source data are available online for this figure.