Access Issues and Training Needs of Teachers in the Adult and Community Sector

Optimization of S3 parameters. (XLS 65 kb

Additional file 2: Table S2. of Decoding breast cancer tissue–stroma interactions using species-specific sequencing

p-values and FDR from SAMlike_test_on_rpkms.py. (XLSX 14232 kb

Additional file 8: Table S7. of Decoding breast cancer tissue–stroma interactions using species-specific sequencing

Alignment Statistics. (PDF 657 kb

Additional file 1: Table S1. of Decoding breast cancer tissue–stroma interactions using species-specific sequencing

Fisher’s exact test for count data (R). (XLSX 10 kb

Additional file 7: Table S6. of Decoding breast cancer tissue–stroma interactions using species-specific sequencing

Gene Ontology. (XLSX 270 kb

Immunohistochemistry images of anti-PEG (brown) and hematoxylin counterstaining (blue) of tumor (A1–A3 and B1–B3) and muscle tissue (A4 and B4) 30 minutes (A) and 2 h (B) post injection of Spago Pix.

<p>Tumor tissue at both time points is shown at three different enlargements where the enlarged areas are indicated by the square boxes. Vessels (V), fibroblasts (Fb) and fat cells (Fc) are indicated with rounded lines. Note that the tumor tissue in panel B1–B3 originates from a mouse injected with a dose of 10 µmol Mn/kg, whereas the other tissues originate from animals administered 20 µmol Mn/kg.</p

Additional file 3: Figure S1. of Decoding breast cancer tissue–stroma interactions using species-specific sequencing

Pipeline of data processing. Figure S2. Comparison with other methods to separate human and mouse reads, both in terms of sensitivity (A) and specificity (B). Figure S3. Comparison of three species (rat, mouse, human) separation of rat (R1–R3) and mouse (M4, M5) RNA-seq samples, similar to Fig. 1g but with absolute number of reads on the y axis. Figure S4. Comparison of the number of genes up- and downregulated in (A) MDA-MB-231 cells co-cultured with 3T3-L1 cells expressing DLL4 or GFP, (B) MDA-MB-231 cells on immobilized Fc-DLL4 or Fc, and (C) 3T3-L1 cells, expressing DLL4 or GFP, co-cultured with MDA-MB-231 cells. Figure S5. Whole-genome gene expression QC: Depth Saturation. Figure S6. Whole-Genome Gene Expression QC: Density Plots after TMM Normalization. Figure S7. Additional principal component analyses (PCA). Figure S8. Scatterplot of genes in Estrogen-related signaling, differentially expressed in MCF7 cells in vitro and MCF7 cells in tumor. Figure S9. Scatterplots of Table S8 comparison groups. Figure S10. Hierarchical Clustering. Figure S11. FINAK_BREAST_CANCER_SDPP_SIGNATURE: Scatterplot of genes in the stroma-derived prognostic predictor of breast cancer disease outcome (Finak et al. 2008 [59]), differentially expressed in (A) Mammary Gland (MG) compared to MCF7 tumor stroma, (B) MG compared to MDA-MB-231 tumor stroma, and MCF7 tumor stroma compared to MDA-MB-231 tumor stroma. (PDF 11548 kb

Illustration of mammary gland localization in the mouse and <i>T</i>₁-weighted MR images of pre-injection and 1 h and 4.5 h post injection, respectively, of Spago Pix.

<p>The 1 h image has tumors (T), liver (L) and gall bladder (G) indicated with white arrows. Note that the pre-injection image is without applied fat saturation.</p

PEG surface area in tumor and muscle at 30 minutes and 2–4 hours post-injection of Spago Pix. p<0.01 for tumor at 2–4 h compared to muscle at 30 min and 2–4 h and compared to tumor at 30 min.

<p>The difference between tumor at 30 min and the muscle groups was not statistically significant.</p

<i>T</i>₁-weighted MR images of the torso of a mouse where enlargements of the indicated tumor site are shown in Panel A before administration of Spago Pix and at five time points thereafter.

<p>Panels B and C show enlargements of ten tumor sites (labeled 1–10) in different animals before administration of Spago Pix and 30 min (B) and 2–4 h (C) thereafter.</p