endogenous mouse apoe gene (Inotiv)
Structured Review

Endogenous Mouse Apoe Gene, supplied by Inotiv, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 99/100, based on 13652 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/product/endogenous+mouse+apoe+gene/pmc12962117-367-12-29?v=Inotiv
Average 99 stars, based on 13652 article reviews
Images
1) Product Images from "APOE4 drives widespread changes to the hepatic proteome and alters metabolic function"
Article Title: APOE4 drives widespread changes to the hepatic proteome and alters metabolic function
Journal: iScience
doi: 10.1016/j.isci.2026.115035
Figure Legend Snippet: Whole liver proteomics in female and male APOE3 and APOE4 mice (A) Study schematic showing primary outcomes in APOE -targeted replacement (TR) mice. n = 3 mice per group for all mouse proteomic outcomes. (B) APOE protein expression from whole liver measured via ELISA in male and female APOE3 and APOE4 mice. Statistical significance was determined by two-way ANOVA. Data are presented as mean ± SD. n = 8 mice per genotype and sex. (C) The number of differentially expressed (DE) proteins in male and female APOE3 and APOE4 mice. (D) Volcano plot showing upregulated and downregulated proteins in female APOE4 vs. APOE3 mice. (E) IPA pathway showing top 5 upregulated and downregulated pathways in female APOE4 vs. APOE3 mice. (F) Volcano plot showing upregulated and downregulated proteins in male APOE4 vs. APOE3 mice. (G) IPA pathway analysis showing top 5 upregulated and downregulated pathways in male APOE4 vs. APOE3 mice. (H) Heatmap of proteins involved in fatty acid metabolism, cholesterol and bile acid metabolism, lipid transport, and lipid storage showing upregulated and downregulated proteins between APOE4 and APOE3 mice. (I) Venn diagram showing the number of shared upregulated proteins between comparisons of female APOE4 vs. APOE3 mice and male APOE4 vs. APOE3 mice. (J) Venn diagram showing the number of downregulated proteins shared between comparisons of female APOE4 vs. APOE3 mice and male APOE4 vs. APOE3 mice. (K) Violin plot showing normalized Pgam1 protein expression from liver proteomics in male and female APOE3 and APOE4 mice. Statistical significance was determined by two-way ANOVA with Fisher’s LSD post hoc. ∗ p < 0.05. G, genotype. n = 3 mice per genotype and sex. See also .
Techniques Used: Expressing, Enzyme-linked Immunosorbent Assay
Figure Legend Snippet: Proteomics analysis of APOE isogenic iHLCs (A) iHLC study schematic. Two pairs of isogenic iPSCs (A and B) homozygous for either APOE3 or APOE4 were used to generate iHLCs and examine proteomic and bioenergetic outcomes. n = 5 per group for all iHLC proteomic outcomes. (B) Violin plots of APOE protein expression between two sample batches in pair A isogenics. Statistical significance was determined by unpaired t test. ns, not significant, ∗∗∗ p < 0.001. (C) Volcano plot showing upregulated and downregulated proteins between APOE4 and APOE3 iHLCs from batch 1. (D) Volcano plot showing upregulated and downregulated proteins between APOE4 and APOE3 iHLCs from batch 2. (E) Heatmap of the top 20 most significant upregulated and top 20 most significant downregulated proteins ( p < 0.05) shared between batch 1 and batch 2. (F) IPA pathway analysis showing top 12 upregulated and top 12 downregulated pathways shared in both batch 1 and 2 between APOE4 and APOE3 iHLCs. (G) STRING network analysis of the most significant upregulated and downregulated proteins shared between batch 1 and batch 2 in APOE4 vs. APOE3 iHLCs. (H) Cellular component Gene Ontology (GO) analysis of the top 20 upregulated and top 20 downregulated proteins in APOE4 vs. APOE3 iHLCs. See also .
Techniques Used: Expressing
Figure Legend Snippet: Mitochondrial function in APOE isogenic iHLCs (A) Mitochondrial stress test (MST) tracing from isogenic pair A. (B) Quantification of basal respiration, maximal respiration, proton leak, and ATP-production linked respiration from isogenic pair an MST. n = 13–14 per group. (C) MST tracing from isogenic pair B. (D) Quantification of basal respiration, maximal respiration, proton leak, and ATP-production-linked respiration from isogenic pair B MST. n = 12–15 per group. (E) Electron transport chain (ETC) flux through complex I, II, III, and IV in isogenic pair A. n = 7–22 per group. (F) ETC flux through complex I, II, III, and IV in isogenic pair B. n = 14–22 per group. (G) Representative tetramethyl rhodamine, ethyl ester, perchlorate (TMRE) images from isogenic pair A. Scale bars, 50 μm. (H–K) Quantification of TMRE (H), MitoSOX (I), Amplex Red (J), and Rhod-2 AM (K) fluorescence intensities from isogenic pair A. n = 8–16 per group. (L) Representative TMRE images from isogenic pair B. Scale bars, 50 μm. (M–P) Quantification of TMRE (M), MitoSOX (N), Amplex Red (O), and Rhod-2 AM (P) fluorescence intensities from isogenic pair B. n = 8–16 per group. (B, D, E–F, H–K, and M–P) Statistical significance was determined by unpaired t test. Data are shown as mean ± SD. ns = not significant, ∗ p < 0.05, ∗∗ p < 0.01, ∗∗∗ p < 0.001, ∗∗∗∗ p < 0.0001.
Techniques Used: Fluorescence
Figure Legend Snippet: Glycolytic function and glucose/pyruvate oxidation in APOE isogenic iHLCs (A) Glycolytic stress test (GST) tracing from isogenic pair A. (B) Quantification of basal glycolysis, glycolytic capacity, glycolytic reserve, and non-glycolytic acidification from isogenic pair A GST. n = 11 per group. (C) GST tracing from isogenic pair B. (D) Quantification of basal glycolysis, glycolytic capacity, glycolytic reserve, and non-glycolytic acidification from isogenic pair B GST. n = 10–16 per group. (E) Glucose/pyruvate oxidation stress test from isogenic pair A. (F) Quantification of basal respiration, acute response, and maximal respiration from isogenic pair A glucose/pyruvate oxidation stress test. n = 7–10 per group. (G) Glucose/pyruvate oxidation stress test from isogenic pair B. (H) Quantification of basal respiration, acute response, and maximal respiration from isogenic pair B glucose/pyruvate oxidation stress test. n = 7–11 per group. (I) Significant DE proteins involved in glucose metabolism pathway from IPA. (J) Glucose metabolism protein network from STRING analysis. (B and D) Statistical significance was determined by unpaired t test and (F and H) two-way ANOVA with Fisher’s LSD post hoc. Data are shown as mean ± SD. ∗ p < 0.05, ∗∗ p < 0.01, ∗∗∗ p < 0.001, ∗∗∗∗ p < 0.0001. D, drug, G, genotype.
Techniques Used:
Figure Legend Snippet: Fatty acid oxidation and LipidTOX staining in APOE isogenic iHLCs (A) Long chain fatty acid (LCFA) oxidation stress test from isogenic pair A. (B) Quantification of basal respiration, acute response, and maximal respiration from isogenic pair An LCFA oxidation stress test. n = 6–8 per group. (C) LCFA oxidation stress test from isogenic pair B. (D) Quantification of basal respiration, acute response, and maximal respiration from isogenic pair B LCFA oxidation stress test. n = 7–10 per group. (E) Representative LipidTOX images from isogenic pair A. Scale bars, 50 μm. (F) Quantification of lipid droplet (LD) numbers per cell and diameter (μm) from isogenic pair A. n = 24 per group. (G) Representative LipidTOX images from isogenic pair B. Scale bars, 50 μm. (H) Quantification of LD numbers per cell and diameter (μm) from isogenic pair B. n = 24 per group. (I) Comparison analysis showing significantly altered proteins in SREBF2 network from proteomics. (B and D) Statistical significance was determined by a two-way ANOVA with Fisher’s LSD post hoc and (F and H) unpaired t test. Data are shown as mean ± SD. ns = not significant, ∗ p < 0.05, ∗∗ p < 0.01, ∗∗∗ p < 0.001, ∗∗∗∗ p < 0.0001. D, drug, G, genotype.
Techniques Used: Staining, Comparison

