mouse spermatogonial gc1 (ATCC)
Structured Review

Mouse Spermatogonial Gc1, supplied by ATCC, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 96/100, based on 271 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/result/mouse spermatogonial gc1/product/ATCC
Average 96 stars, based on 271 article reviews
Images
1) Product Images from "The effect of salubrinal on the endoplasmic reticulum stress pathway in heat‐stressed spermatogonial cells in vitro"
Article Title: The effect of salubrinal on the endoplasmic reticulum stress pathway in heat‐stressed spermatogonial cells in vitro
Journal: FEBS Open Bio
doi: 10.1002/2211-5463.70169
Figure Legend Snippet: Determination of the IC50 values (μ m ) for GC1 and GC2 cell lines following 24 h SAL exposure. Representative phase‐contrast images demonstrate the typical epithelioid morphology of cells maintained under standard culture conditions and the reduced viability observed at the IC50 concentration of SAL. The cell images on the left side represent control (C) cells, while the images on the right side represent cells treated with IC50 concentrations of SAL (IC50 SAL). Black arrow: Living cell. White arrow: Dead cell. Scale bar: 100 μm.
Techniques Used: Concentration Assay, Control
Figure Legend Snippet: Inverted microscope images of GC1 and GC2 experimental groups. Quantitative analysis shows a decrease in viable cell numbers in the HSM‐applied groups compared to controls. Data are expressed as mean ± SD ( n = 3, 10 randomly selected fields per group). Statistical analysis: one‐way ANOVA, followed by Sidak's post hoc test. (** P < 0.05; statistical analysis was performed using graphpad Software). Scale bar: 100 μm.
Techniques Used: Inverted Microscopy, Software
Figure Legend Snippet: Representative fluorescent images (each image is an overlay with DAPI nuclear staining) and quantitative CTCF values for HSP70, GRP78, p‐IRE1α, p‐PERK, p‐eIF2α, and ATF6 in GC1 cells across all groups (C, SAL, HSM, HSMSAL). Composite images were generated by merging individual fluorescence channels. Data are expressed as mean ± SD ( n = 3, 10 fields/group). Statistical analysis: one‐way ANOVA, followed by Sidak's post hoc test. (* P < 0.05, ** P < 0.01, *** P < 0.001, **** P < 0.0001; statistical analysis was performed using graphpad Software). Scale bar: 50 μm.
Techniques Used: Staining, Generated, Fluorescence, Software
Figure Legend Snippet: Relative mRNA expression levels of GRP78 (A), PERK (B), and eIF2α (C) in GC1 and GC2 cells. Gene expression was quantified by qRT‐PCR and analyzed using the 2 − Δ Δ C t method. The control groups (GC1C and GC2C) were designated as calibrators and normalized to a fixed value of 1.0 by definition. Data are presented as mean ± SD from three independent biological replicates, each analyzed in technical triplicates. Individual data points are shown for all groups. Statistical evaluation was performed using the Kruskal–Wallis test, followed by Dunn's post hoc test (* P < 0.05; statistical analysis was performed using graphpad Software).
Techniques Used: Expressing, Gene Expression, Quantitative RT-PCR, Control, Software

