ndst3 (Novus Biologicals)

Novus Biologicals is a verified supplier

Novus Biologicals manufactures this product

About

News

Press Release

Team

Advisors

Partners

Contact

Bioz Stars

Bioz vStars

Buy from Supplier

Structured Review

Novus Biologicals ndst3

Identification of regenerating factor as a regulator of therapeutic genes for Parkinson's disease therapy. A) Conceptual diagram outlining the basis of an epigenetic regulator. B) Comparative gene expression heatmap of substantia nigra (SN) in wild type control versus 6‐OHDA‐induced Parkinson's disease (PD) mouse model. C) Heatmap showing gene expression profiles in the caudate and putamen regions of healthy individuals (HI) and a cohort of human PD patients. BG: Basal Ganglia. D) Immunofluorescence images showing TUJ1‐ and MAP2‐positive cells under each condition. Scale bar = 50 µm. E) Immunochemistry and Sholl analysis of TH‐labeled neurons. Left panel: morphology of individual neurons. Right panel: Sholl analysis showing the number of neurite intersections as a function of distance from the soma. Scale bar = 100 µm. The data are presented as mean ± SEM ( n = 5 – 6 cells per group). F) Representative traces of action potentials evoked by depolarizing current injections under each condition (sham, 6‐OHDA, <t>6‐OHDA+NDST3).</t> G) Dot plot showing the top 14 GO Biological Process terms from enrichment analyses: 6‐OHDA versus Sham (left side) and 6‐OHDA+NDST3 versus 6‐OHDA (right side). H) Pearson correlation matrix of transcriptomic among samples.

Ndst3, supplied by Novus Biologicals, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 93/100, based on 2 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/product/spatial+transcriptomics+sequencing+st+seq/pmc12970244-400-25-26?v=Novus+Biologicals
Average 93 stars, based on 2 article reviews

ndst3 - by Bioz Stars, 2026-08

93/100 stars

Images

1) Product Images from "NDST3‐Induced Epigenetic Reprogramming Reverses Neurodegeneration in Parkinson's Disease"

Article Title: NDST3‐Induced Epigenetic Reprogramming Reverses Neurodegeneration in Parkinson's Disease

Journal: Advanced Science

doi: 10.1002/advs.202507323

Figure Legend Snippet: Identification of regenerating factor as a regulator of therapeutic genes for Parkinson's disease therapy. A) Conceptual diagram outlining the basis of an epigenetic regulator. B) Comparative gene expression heatmap of substantia nigra (SN) in wild type control versus 6‐OHDA‐induced Parkinson's disease (PD) mouse model. C) Heatmap showing gene expression profiles in the caudate and putamen regions of healthy individuals (HI) and a cohort of human PD patients. BG: Basal Ganglia. D) Immunofluorescence images showing TUJ1‐ and MAP2‐positive cells under each condition. Scale bar = 50 µm. E) Immunochemistry and Sholl analysis of TH‐labeled neurons. Left panel: morphology of individual neurons. Right panel: Sholl analysis showing the number of neurite intersections as a function of distance from the soma. Scale bar = 100 µm. The data are presented as mean ± SEM ( n = 5 – 6 cells per group). F) Representative traces of action potentials evoked by depolarizing current injections under each condition (sham, 6‐OHDA, 6‐OHDA+NDST3). G) Dot plot showing the top 14 GO Biological Process terms from enrichment analyses: 6‐OHDA versus Sham (left side) and 6‐OHDA+NDST3 versus 6‐OHDA (right side). H) Pearson correlation matrix of transcriptomic among samples.

Techniques Used: Gene Expression, Control, Immunofluorescence, Labeling

Therapeutic efficacy of NDST3 and retrograde tracing with CTB in mice. A) Schematic diagram of in vivo experimental design involving CTB injection in the PD mouse model. B) Representative immunofluorescence images of CTB, TH, and NDST3 expression in the SN of Sham, 6‐OHDA‐induced PD mice, and NDST3‐treated PD mice. Scale bar = 50 µm and 10 µm (Magnified image). C) Quantification of CTB‐, TH‐, and NDST3‐positive cells shown in Figure . Data are presented as mean ± SEM ( n = 6 independent animals per group). One‐way ANOVA with Tukey's multiple comparisons test. ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001, **** p < 0.0001, and ns = not significant. D) Immunofluorescence images showing GIRK2‐ and TH‐positive cells in the Sham, 6‐OHDA‐induced PD mice, and NDST3‐treated PD mice. Scale bar = 50 µm and 10 µm (Magnified image). E) 3D Z‐stack analysis (IMARIS) of TH‐positive neurons obtained via confocal microscopy. F) DAB‐DAT staining in the SN.

Figure Legend Snippet: Therapeutic efficacy of NDST3 and retrograde tracing with CTB in mice. A) Schematic diagram of in vivo experimental design involving CTB injection in the PD mouse model. B) Representative immunofluorescence images of CTB, TH, and NDST3 expression in the SN of Sham, 6‐OHDA‐induced PD mice, and NDST3‐treated PD mice. Scale bar = 50 µm and 10 µm (Magnified image). C) Quantification of CTB‐, TH‐, and NDST3‐positive cells shown in Figure . Data are presented as mean ± SEM ( n = 6 independent animals per group). One‐way ANOVA with Tukey's multiple comparisons test. ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001, **** p < 0.0001, and ns = not significant. D) Immunofluorescence images showing GIRK2‐ and TH‐positive cells in the Sham, 6‐OHDA‐induced PD mice, and NDST3‐treated PD mice. Scale bar = 50 µm and 10 µm (Magnified image). E) 3D Z‐stack analysis (IMARIS) of TH‐positive neurons obtained via confocal microscopy. F) DAB‐DAT staining in the SN.

Techniques Used: Drug discovery, Retrograde Tracing, In Vivo, Injection, Immunofluorescence, Expressing, Confocal Microscopy, Staining

$Efficacy and electrophysiological properties of NDST3 in chemical‐induced PD model. A) Representative traces of spontaneous firing currents recorded from DA neurons of the SNpc in brain slices from each group. B) Cumulative fractions curves showing shortened inter‐event intervals, indicating a higher frequency of spontaneous firing in the 6‐OHDA + NDST3 group compared to the 6‐OHDA group. The inner bar graph showed mean inter‐event intervals in the ipsilateral of SNpc of each group. Data are presented as mean ± SEM ( n = 6 – 8 independent animals per group). One‐way ANOVA with Tukey's multiple comparisons test. *** p < 0.001. C) Quantification of DA neuronal firing rates in the ipsilateral SNpc of each group. The data are presented as mean ± SEM ( n = 6–8 independent animals per group). One‐way ANOVA with Tukey's multiple comparisons test. * p < 0.05, and ** p < 0.01. D) Representative in vivo recording traces from the SNpc of live animals in each condition. E) Instantaneous firing frequencies during the recorded period. ( n = 4–6 independent animals per group; repeated measures) Two‐way ANOVA with Tukey's multiple comparisons test, * p < 0.05. F) Comparison of action potential waveforms among DA neurons across conditions. G) Representative image of DAB‐TH staining in ST and SN. Scale bar = 1 mm. H) Immunofluorescence images showing GIRK2‐ and TH‐positive cells in the Sham, MPTP‐induced PD mice, NDST3‐treated PD mice, and NDST3 only‐treated mice. Scale bar = 50 µm and 10 µm (Magnified image). I) Error count during the challenging beam traversal test for each experimental condition. The data are presented as mean ± SEM. ( n = 7 – 8 independent animals per group) Two‐way ANOVA with Tukey's multiple comparisons test. **** p < 0.0001. J) Errors per step during the challenging beam traversal test across conditions. The data are presented as mean ± SEM ( n = 7 – 8 independent animal per group). One‐way ANOVA with Tukey's multiple comparisons test. **** p < 0.0001. K) Fall latency in the wire‐hanging test. The data are presented as mean ± SEM ( n = 7–8 independent animals per group). One‐way ANOVA with Tukey's multiple comparisons test. *** p < 0.001 and **** p < 0.0001. L) Time to orient downward (T‐turn) and M) time to descend to the base (T‐total). The data are presented as mean ± SEM ( n = 7–8 independent animals per group). One‐way ANOVA with Tukey's multiple comparisons test. * p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001 and **** p < 0.0001.$
Figure Legend Snippet: Efficacy and electrophysiological properties of NDST3 in chemical‐induced PD model. A) Representative traces of spontaneous firing currents recorded from DA neurons of the SNpc in brain slices from each group. B) Cumulative fractions curves showing shortened inter‐event intervals, indicating a higher frequency of spontaneous firing in the 6‐OHDA + NDST3 group compared to the 6‐OHDA group. The inner bar graph showed mean inter‐event intervals in the ipsilateral of SNpc of each group. Data are presented as mean ± SEM ( n = 6 – 8 independent animals per group). One‐way ANOVA with Tukey's multiple comparisons test. *** p < 0.001. C) Quantification of DA neuronal firing rates in the ipsilateral SNpc of each group. The data are presented as mean ± SEM ( n = 6–8 independent animals per group). One‐way ANOVA with Tukey's multiple comparisons test. * p < 0.05, and ** p < 0.01. D) Representative in vivo recording traces from the SNpc of live animals in each condition. E) Instantaneous firing frequencies during the recorded period. ( n = 4–6 independent animals per group; repeated measures) Two‐way ANOVA with Tukey's multiple comparisons test, * p < 0.05. F) Comparison of action potential waveforms among DA neurons across conditions. G) Representative image of DAB‐TH staining in ST and SN. Scale bar = 1 mm. H) Immunofluorescence images showing GIRK2‐ and TH‐positive cells in the Sham, MPTP‐induced PD mice, NDST3‐treated PD mice, and NDST3 only‐treated mice. Scale bar = 50 µm and 10 µm (Magnified image). I) Error count during the challenging beam traversal test for each experimental condition. The data are presented as mean ± SEM. ( n = 7 – 8 independent animals per group) Two‐way ANOVA with Tukey's multiple comparisons test. **** p < 0.0001. J) Errors per step during the challenging beam traversal test across conditions. The data are presented as mean ± SEM ( n = 7 – 8 independent animal per group). One‐way ANOVA with Tukey's multiple comparisons test. **** p < 0.0001. K) Fall latency in the wire‐hanging test. The data are presented as mean ± SEM ( n = 7–8 independent animals per group). One‐way ANOVA with Tukey's multiple comparisons test. *** p < 0.001 and **** p < 0.0001. L) Time to orient downward (T‐turn) and M) time to descend to the base (T‐total). The data are presented as mean ± SEM ( n = 7–8 independent animals per group). One‐way ANOVA with Tukey's multiple comparisons test. * p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001 and **** p < 0.0001.

Techniques Used: In Vivo, Comparison, Staining, Immunofluorescence

Molecular mechanisms of NDST3 in the PD model. A) One‐way hierarchical clustering heatmap based on Z‐score of normalized expression value for 5629 genes selected with fold change ≥ 2 and raw p ‐value < 0.05. B) Principal component analysis (PCA) analysis of RNA‐seq data to visualize sample‐to‐sample variation. C) Volcano plot showing differentially expressed genes between 6‐OHDA and Sham group; Down‐regulated genes marked in blue. D) Volcano plot showing differentially expressed genes between 6‐OHDA+NDST3 and 6‐OHDA; Up‐regulated genes marked in red. E) Dot plot of top 14 GO cellular component terms from GO enrichment analyses: 6‐OHDA+NDST3 versus 6‐OHDA. Heatmap showing gene expression patterns in F) pre‐synaptic neurons, G) post‐synaptic neurons, and H) glia compartments. I) UMAP visualizing cluster identity. J) UMAP representation comparing cellular composition in 6‐OHDA and 6‐OHDA+NDST3. K) Branched trajectory analysis illustrating cell state transitions in a 2D state‐space, where each dot represents a single cell, color‐coded by group identity.

Figure Legend Snippet: Molecular mechanisms of NDST3 in the PD model. A) One‐way hierarchical clustering heatmap based on Z‐score of normalized expression value for 5629 genes selected with fold change ≥ 2 and raw p ‐value < 0.05. B) Principal component analysis (PCA) analysis of RNA‐seq data to visualize sample‐to‐sample variation. C) Volcano plot showing differentially expressed genes between 6‐OHDA and Sham group; Down‐regulated genes marked in blue. D) Volcano plot showing differentially expressed genes between 6‐OHDA+NDST3 and 6‐OHDA; Up‐regulated genes marked in red. E) Dot plot of top 14 GO cellular component terms from GO enrichment analyses: 6‐OHDA+NDST3 versus 6‐OHDA. Heatmap showing gene expression patterns in F) pre‐synaptic neurons, G) post‐synaptic neurons, and H) glia compartments. I) UMAP visualizing cluster identity. J) UMAP representation comparing cellular composition in 6‐OHDA and 6‐OHDA+NDST3. K) Branched trajectory analysis illustrating cell state transitions in a 2D state‐space, where each dot represents a single cell, color‐coded by group identity.

Techniques Used: Expressing, RNA Sequencing, Gene Expression, Single Cell

Comprehensive analysis of spatial transcriptomics and epigenetic modulation following NDST3 treatment in a PD model. A) Heatmap showing gene expression patterns in each cluster. ** p < 0.01, and **** p < 0.0001. B) Gene concept network plot displaying genes enriched in catabolic, metabolic, and wound healing GO categories. The top 30 most differentially expressed genes comparing 6‐OHDA versus Sham and 6‐OHDA+NDST3 versus 6‐OHDA. Node color intensity represents the log2 fold‐change of gene expression. C) Cell‐cell communication network plot illustrating interactions among three distinct cell clusters in 6‐OHDA‐induced PD model (left panel) and NDST3‐treated PD model (right panel), based on ligand–receptor pair probabilities using the CellChat database. Line thickness indicates proportionality to the number of interactions. D) Spatial localization of dopamine‐related markers. E) Spatial mapping of dopaminergic lineage markers identified via scRNA‐Seq. F) Heatmap visualization of CUT&RUN and ATAC‐Seq signal intensity ±2 kb around the TSS. G) Immunofluorescence images showing H3K27ac and TH‐positive cells in the Sham, 6‐OHDA‐induced PD mice, and NDST3‐treated PD mice. Scale bar = 50 µm. H) Venn diagram illustrating overlapping genes among DEGs from RNA‐Seq, scRNA‐Seq Cluster 9, CUT&RUN peak, and ATAC‐Seq peak. Average signal plot of I) CUT&RUN and J) ATAC‐seq signals at over‐enriched TSS regions of the Ncoa7 gene. K) Structure of NDST3‐NCOA7‐H3K27ac complex. Blue – NDST3, Green – NCOA7, and Red – H3K27ac. The yellow boundary represents the interaction region.

Figure Legend Snippet: Comprehensive analysis of spatial transcriptomics and epigenetic modulation following NDST3 treatment in a PD model. A) Heatmap showing gene expression patterns in each cluster. ** p < 0.01, and **** p < 0.0001. B) Gene concept network plot displaying genes enriched in catabolic, metabolic, and wound healing GO categories. The top 30 most differentially expressed genes comparing 6‐OHDA versus Sham and 6‐OHDA+NDST3 versus 6‐OHDA. Node color intensity represents the log2 fold‐change of gene expression. C) Cell‐cell communication network plot illustrating interactions among three distinct cell clusters in 6‐OHDA‐induced PD model (left panel) and NDST3‐treated PD model (right panel), based on ligand–receptor pair probabilities using the CellChat database. Line thickness indicates proportionality to the number of interactions. D) Spatial localization of dopamine‐related markers. E) Spatial mapping of dopaminergic lineage markers identified via scRNA‐Seq. F) Heatmap visualization of CUT&RUN and ATAC‐Seq signal intensity ±2 kb around the TSS. G) Immunofluorescence images showing H3K27ac and TH‐positive cells in the Sham, 6‐OHDA‐induced PD mice, and NDST3‐treated PD mice. Scale bar = 50 µm. H) Venn diagram illustrating overlapping genes among DEGs from RNA‐Seq, scRNA‐Seq Cluster 9, CUT&RUN peak, and ATAC‐Seq peak. Average signal plot of I) CUT&RUN and J) ATAC‐seq signals at over‐enriched TSS regions of the Ncoa7 gene. K) Structure of NDST3‐NCOA7‐H3K27ac complex. Blue – NDST3, Green – NCOA7, and Red – H3K27ac. The yellow boundary represents the interaction region.

Techniques Used: Spatial Transcriptomics, Gene Expression, Immunofluorescence, RNA Sequencing

Review

ndst3 (Novus Biologicals)

Structured Review

Images

1) Product Images from "NDST3‐Induced Epigenetic Reprogramming Reverses Neurodegeneration in Parkinson's Disease"

Similar Products

Image Search Results