Transcriptional analysis of cDC subsets in Irf8+32 -/- and Zeb2 -165(d1+2+3) mice

To determine if the residual cDC subsets in the Δ1+2+3 and Δ32 mice reflected their normal counterparts, we performed bulk RNA-sequencing analysis of cDC1 and cDC2 from WT, Δ1+2+3 and Δ32 mice. cDC1 from WT and Δ1+2+3 clustered together in principal component analysis (PCA) plot, whereas cDC2 from WT and Δ32 mice cluster together. Further, cDC1 and cDC2 from WT mice show a large number of differentially expressed genes (DEGs), as expected. However, there were few DEGs in cDC1 between WT and Δ1+2+3 mice, or in cDC2 between WT and Δ32 mice, indicating no substantive transcriptional differences between corresponding cDC subsets in WT, Δ32 and Δ1+2+3 mice. mRNA profiles of splenic cDC1 and cDC2 isolated from WT, Irf8 +32-/-, or Zeb2 -165(d1+2+3) mice

为明确Δ1+2+3与Δ32小鼠体内残留的经典树突状细胞（conventional dendritic cell, cDC）亚群是否与其正常对应亚群一致，我们对野生型（Wild Type, WT）、Δ1+2+3及Δ32小鼠的cDC1与cDC2进行了批量RNA测序（bulk RNA-sequencing）分析。主成分分析（principal component analysis, PCA）结果显示，野生型与Δ1+2+3小鼠的cDC1聚为一类，而野生型与Δ32小鼠的cDC2则聚为一类。进一步分析表明，正如预期，野生型小鼠的cDC1与cDC2之间存在大量差异表达基因（differentially expressed genes, DEGs）。然而，野生型与Δ1+2+3小鼠的cDC1之间，或野生型与Δ32小鼠的cDC2之间的差异表达基因数量极少，这表明野生型、Δ32与Δ1+2+3小鼠的对应cDC亚群之间不存在实质性转录组差异。本数据集包含从野生型、Irf8 +32-/-或Zeb2 -165(d1+2+3)小鼠中分离的脾脏cDC1与cDC2的mRNA表达谱。