sun2 (Santa Cruz Biotechnology)
Structured Review

Sun2, supplied by Santa Cruz Biotechnology, 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/result/sun2/product/Santa Cruz Biotechnology
Average 93 stars, based on 2 article reviews
Images
1) Product Images from "Tension-sensitive LINC-RhoA signaling prevents chromatin bridge breakage in cytokinesis"
Article Title: Tension-sensitive LINC-RhoA signaling prevents chromatin bridge breakage in cytokinesis
Journal: The EMBO Journal
doi: 10.1038/s44318-025-00565-3
Figure Legend Snippet: ( A ) Actin patches intensity in control BE cells or cells treated with 1 μM SB273005 (integrin i) for 15 min. Mean ± SD from n cells from two independent experiments. Values in control were set to 1. P = 0.80 by Student’s t test. ( B ) Percentage of broken DNA bridges. Mean ± SD from four independent experiments ( n = 95, 53). P = 0.27 by Student’s t test. ( C – E ) Cartoons of cells exhibiting deformed nuclei. ( F – H ) DNA staining in cells with stretched or loose chromatin bridges, or without DNA bridges. ( I ) Nuclear chromatin shape in interphase cells without chromatin bridges, untransfected (control) cells with intact chromatin bridges, or cells transfected with Sun1/2 siRNA (siSun1/2), dominant-negative KASH (dnKASH) or Nesprin-2 siRNA (siNesprin-2) with intact chromatin bridges. Mean ± SD from n cells from two independent experiments. *** P = 4.04E-34 (interphase no bridges vs control), 7.89E-06 (interphase no bridges vs siSun1/2), 0.00037 (interphase no bridges vs dnKASH), 4.14E-13 (control vs siSun1/2), 2.46E-12 (control vs siNesprin-2) by ANOVA and Student’s t test. ( J ) Cartoon of the Sun1/2-Nesprin-2 LINC complex. SRs, spectrin repeats; INM/ONM, inner/outer nuclear membrane; CH, calponin homology. ( K – M ) Sun2 localization. ( N ) Percentage of cells exhibiting Sun2 nuclear lines. Cells were transfected with RhoA siRNA (siRhoA) or treated as in ( I ). Mean ± SD from three independent experiments ( n = 213, 79, 69, 72). *** P = 0.00098 (interphase no bridges vs control); ** P = 0.0011 (control vs dnKASH) by Student’s t test. ( O ) Nuclear chromatin shape in cells with intact or broken chromatin bridges. Mean ± SD from n cells from two independent experiments. *** P = 1.15E-06 (control intact vs siRhoA broken), 0.00032 (siRhoA intact vs siRhoA broken) by ANOVA and Student’s t test. ( P ) Cartoon showing the front and back of the nucleus where Nesprin-2, Sun1 or Sun2 intensity was measured. ( Q , R ) Nesprin-2 localization. ( S ) Front/back Nesprin-2 intensity. Mean ± SD from n cells from two independent experiments. *** P = 3.71E-21 (interphase no bridges vs control), 1.25E-10 (control vs siSun1/2), 1.91E-05 (control vs dnKASH) by ANOVA and Student’s t test. ( T ) Front/back Sun2 intensity. Mean ± SD from n cells from two independent experiments. *** P = 6.29E-18 by Student’s t test. ( U , V ) Nesprin-2 localization. Arrowheads show Sun2 nuclear lines or Nesprin-2 accumulation. ( W ) Actin patches. Intact arrows indicate actin patches and/or canal bases. Insets show high magnifications of the canal bases. Scale bars, 5 μm. ( X ) Percentage of cells exhibiting intact loose chromatin bridges. Mean ± SD from three independent experiments ( n = 188, 138, 113, 74). *** P = 7.29E-05 (control vs siSun1/2), 0.00025 (control vs siNesprin-2) by ANOVA and Student’s t test. ( Y ) Actin patches intensity. Mean ± SD from n cells from two independent experiments. Values in control were set to 1. Numbers below/next to each bar indicate n . *** P = 5.48E-20 (control vs siSun1/2), 1.004E-44 (control vs siNesprin-2) by ANOVA and Student’s t test. ( Z ) Percentage of cells exhibiting broken chromatin bridges. Mean ± SD from four independent experiments ( n = 95, 138, 138). *** P = 0.00013 (control vs siSun1/2), 0.00086 (control vs siNesprin-2) by ANOVA and Student’s t test. .
Techniques Used: Control, Staining, Transfection, Dominant Negative Mutation, Membrane
Figure Legend Snippet: ( A , B ) RhoA localization in control BE cells or cells transfected with Sun1/2 siRNA (siSun1/2). Intact arrows indicate actin patches and/or canal bases. Broken arrows indicate broken DNA bridges. Scale bars, 5 μm. ( C ) RhoA intensity. Mean ± SD from n cells from two independent experiments. Values in control were set to 1. *** P = 1.01E-35 (control vs siSun1/2), 1.45E-38 (control vs siSun1/2 intact bridges) by ANOVA and Student’s t test. ( D ) Western blot analysis of total RhoA or α-tubulin (α-tub). ( E ) Actin patches intensity in GFP-positive cells. Cells were transfected with GFP:RhoA-G14V or GFP in the absence (control) or presence of siSun1/2. Mean ± SD from n cells from two independent experiments. Values in control GFP were set to 1. *** P = 2.83E-36 (control GFP vs GFP+siSun1/2), 1.79E-36 (GFP+siSun1/2 vs GFP:RhoA-G14V+siSun1/2) by ANOVA and Student’s t test. ( F ) Percentage of broken DNA bridges in GFP-positive cells. Mean ± SD from three independent experiments ( n = 125, 73, 83, 85). *** P = 0.00029; ** P = 0.0051 by ANOVA and Student’s t test. ( G ) Cartoons of Nesprin-2, mini-Nesprin-2 CB and CH* proteins. SRs spectrin repeats, ONM outer nuclear membrane, CH calponin homology. ( H ) Nuclear chromatin shape in cells expressing mini-Nesprin-2 CB or CH* proteins in the absence or presence of Nesprin-2 siRNA (siNesprin-2). Mean ± SD from n cells from two independent experiments. *** P = 1.01E-24 (interphase no bridges vs control GFP), 1.33E-07 (interphase no bridges vs GFP+siNesprin-2), 3.46E-06 (interphase no bridges vs CH*+siNesprin-2), 2.63E-06 (control GFP vs GFP+siNesprin-2), 5.98E-05 (GFP+siNesprin-2 vs CB+siNesprin-2), 5.92E-05 (CB+siNesprin-2 vs CH*+siNesprin-2) by ANOVA and Student’s t test. ( I ) Percentage of cells exhibiting Sun2 nuclear lines. Mean ± SD from three independent experiments ( n = 215, 64, 52, 65). ** P = 0.0062 (interphase no bridges vs CH*+siNesprin-2), 0.0018 (CB+siNesprin-2 vs CH*+siNesprin-2) by ANOVA and Student’s t test. ( J ) Percentage of intact loose DNA bridges in GFP- or YFP-positive cells. Mean ± SD from three independent experiments ( n = 143, 70, 102, 107). *** P = 0.00016 (control GFP vs GFP+siNesprin-2), 1.27E-05 (CB+siNesprin-2 vs CH*+siNesprin-2); ** P = 0.0035 by ANOVA and Student’s t test. ( K ) Chromatin bridges and actin patches in cells expressing mini-Nesprin-2 CB. ( L ) Actin patches intensity in GFP- or YFP-positive cells. Values in control GFP were set to 1. Mean ± SD from n cells from two independent experiments. *** P = 4.97E-88 (control GFP vs GFP+siNesprin-2), 1.05E-83 (control GFP vs CB+siNesprin-2), 1.63E-93 (control GFP vs CH*+siNesprin-2) by ANOVA and Student’s t test. ( M ) Percentage of broken DNA bridges in GFP- or YFP-positive cells. Mean ± SD from four independent experiments ( n = 125, 92, 84, 107). *** P = 3.83E-06 (control GFP vs GFP+siNesprin-2), 1.34E-06 (control GFP vs CB+siNesprin-2), 0.00072 (control GFP vs CH*+siNesprin-2); ** P = 0.009 (GFP+siNesprin-2 vs CB+siNesprin-2), 0.0079 (CB+siNesprin-2vs CH*+siNesprin-2) by ANOVA and Student’s t test. ( N , O ) Chromatin bridges and actin patches in cells expressing mini-Nesprin-2 CH* protein. Intact arrows indicate actin patches and/or canal bases. Broken arrows indicate broken DNA bridges. Insets show high magnifications of the canal bases. Scale bars, 5 μm. ( P ) Nuclear chromatin shape in cells transfected with Lamin A/C siRNA (siLamin A/C), or as in ( A , B ). Mean ± SD from n cells from two independent experiments. *** P = 1.28E-05 (interphase no bridges vs siLaminA/C), 4.44E-12 (control vs siLaminA/C) by ANOVA and Student’s t test. ( Q ) Percentage of intact loose DNA bridges. Mean ± SD from three independent experiments ( n = 188, 77). *** P = 0.00021 by ANOVA and Student’s t test. ( R ) Front/back Nesprin-2 intensity. Mean ± SD from n cells from two independent experiments. *** P = 4.34E-21 (interphase no bridges vs siRhoA), 1.24E-15 (control vs siLaminA/C) by ANOVA and Student’s t test. ( S ) Actin patches intensity. Mean ± SD from n cells from two independent experiments. Values in control were set to 1. Numbers below/next to each bar indicate n . *** P = 8.75E-56 by Student’s t test. .
Techniques Used: Control, Transfection, Western Blot, Membrane, Expressing


38 ). ( C – E ) NHDFs were mock infected or infected with TB40/E-UL99-mCherry at MOI 5 for the indicated times. ( C ) Samples were fixed and stained with antibodies against SUN2 (green) and gB (red), while DNA was stained with Hoechst (blue). White arrows point to migrating cells with characteristic oblong nuclei and an AC at the leading edge, which contain even lower levels of SUN2 than infected cells still at earlier stages of infection. An uninfected cell lacking an AC is also indicated with an orange arrow for reference. ( D ) Samples were fixed and stained with antibodies against β-actin (green) and gB (red), while DNA was stained with Hoechst (blue). White arrows highlight actin filament subsets that traverse the nucleus in uninfected cells. ( E ) Samples were fixed and stained with antibodies against acetylated tubulin (green) and gB (red), while DNA was stained with Hoechst (blue). Representative images are shown in A and C – E from multiple fields of view and at least three independent replicate experiments. " width="250" height="auto" />