Group in comparison to CT but not in comparison with AML group (Figure 4C). Having said that, 3-week postcompared to CT but not in comparison with AML group (Figure 4C). Nevertheless, 3-week postinjection of GCSF into AML- (AML GCSF) and (AML CYT)- (AML CYT GCSF), but injection of GCSF into AML- (AML GCSF) and (AML CYT)- (AML CYT GCSF), not CYT- (CYT GCSF), treated group significantly decreased the Lauric acid-d5 Protocol expression levels of but not CYT- (CYT GCSF), treated group significantly decreased the expression levels of BAX (intrinsic pathway) and FAS and CASP3 (extrinsic pathway) (to become similar to BAX (intrinsic pathway) and FAS and CASP3 (extrinsic pathway) (to come to be similar to CT CT group) compared to AML-, (AML CYT)- and CYT-treated groups (Figure 4C). group) in comparison with AML-, (AML CYT)- and CYT-treated groups (Figure 4C). 2.5. Effect of GCSF on the Pre-Meiotic, Meiotic and Post-Meiotic Cells and Their Expression Levels in Testes of AML- and CYT-Treated GroupsInt. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22,8 ofInt. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, x FOR PEER REVIEW8 of2.5. Estrone 3-glucuronide Drug Metabolite Impact of GCSF on the Pre-Meiotic, Meiotic and Post-Meiotic Cells and Their Expression Levels in Testes of AML- and CYT-Treated Groups Our final results show that 3-week post-injection of GCSF into manage mice did not signifOur results show that 3-week post-injection of GCSF into manage mice did not signifiicantly affect the percentages and thethe expression levels ofpre-meiotic (SALL(SALL and cantly impact the percentages and expression levels on the the pre-meiotic and PLZF), PLZF), meiotic (CREM) (except the expressionwhich increased its expression levels) levmeiotic (CREM) (except the expression levels levels which increased its expression and els) plus the meiotic/post-meiotic cell markers when compared with CT (Figure five). the meiotic/post-meiotic cell markers in comparison with CT (Figure five).Figure 5. Impact of GCSF on the pre-meiotic, meiotic and post-meiotic cellcell and their expression levels in testes of AMLFigure five. Effect of GCSF on the pre-meiotic, meiotic and post-meiotic and their expression levels in testes of AML- and CYT-treated groups. MiceMice were treated as described in Figure 2. Testicular sections different groups of treated mice and CYT-treated groups. had been treated as described in Figure 2. Testicular sections from from unique groups of treated had been have been examined by immunohistochemical (IHC) stainingwe we described in Figure 1C for the pre-meioticcell markers mice examined by immunohistochemical (IHC) staining as as described in Figure 1C for the pre-meiotic cell markers (SALL4 and PLZF), for the meiotic marker (CREM) and for the meiotic/post-meiotic marker (ACROSIN) working with distinct (SALL4 and PLZF), for the meiotic marker (CREM) and for the meiotic/post-meiotic marker (ACROSIN) applying particular antibodies for every marker. The amount of stained cells/seminiferous tubule for SALL4 (A), PLZF (B) was counted. The antibodies for every single marker. The amount of stained cells/seminiferous tubule for SALL4 (A), PLZF (B) was counted. The percentages of tubules with 10 cells of CREM-positive stained cells (C) or ACROSIN-positive stained (D) were counted. percentages of tubules with of SALL4 of CREM-positiveCREM (C1) and ACROSIN (D1) in testes of all (D) had been counted. The RNA expression levels ten cells (A1), PLZF (B1), stained cells (C) or ACROSIN-positive stained examined groups The RNA expression evaluation employing (A1), PLZF (B1), CREM marker. qPCR results are testes of all examined groups were have been tested by qPCRlevels of SALL4spec.
