ZFIN Image: Costa et al., 2020, Figure 4

Image

Figure Caption

Figure 4 <italic>RAB13</italic> mRNA polarisation spatially orients filopodia dynamics

Representative time‐lapse microscopy of a bEnd.3 cell co‐transfected with plasmids expressing Lyn‐mCherry, MCP‐GFPnls and 24xMS2‐RAB13 3′UTR.

Frequency of newly formed filopodia formed within 5‐μm intervals relative to the nearest MCP‐GFPnls particle or a randomised (ctrl) position (n = 99 filopodia; **P < 0.01, ns: not significant; Pearson's r correlation).

Distance of newly formed filopodia to MCP‐GFPnls or a ctrl position plotted against filopodia duration (n = 99 filopodia; *P < 0.05, ns: not significant; Spearman's r correlation).

Wt and ∆LE HUVECs co‐cultured on fibroblast monolayers. Endothelial cells were identified either with an antibody against the endothelial cell marker PECAM‐1 (left) or through expression of a nucleofected plasmid encoding the cytoskeletal marker Lifeact‐GFP (right).

Number of filopodia detected in co‐cultured HUVECs (n = 30 cells; **P < 0.01; unpaired t test).

Number of filopodia detected in co‐cultured HUVECs within 12‐μm intervals relative to cell distal tip (n = 30 cells; **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001, ns: not significant; one‐way ANOVA with Bonferroni's correction).

Number of filopodia detected in individual clones of co‐cultured HUVECs within 12‐μm intervals relative to cell distal tip.

Illustration of the spatial relationship between RAB13 mRNA localisation and sites of filopodia production.

Data information: 3 Wt and 3 ∆LE HUVECs independent clones were used to collect data (D–G). Arrowheads indicate filopodia (A, D); scale bars = 10 μm (A) and 6 μm (D). Bar charts are presented as means ± s.d.

Acknowledgments

This image is the copyrighted work of the attributed author or publisher, and ZFIN has permission only to display this image to its users. Additional permissions should be obtained from the applicable author or publisher of the image. Full text @ EMBO J.