Investigating the efficacy and toxicity of partial in vivo reprogramming as a rejuvenation intervention (IMAGE)
Caption
Figure 1. Differential gene expression and directional overlap across comparison groups. (A) Numbers of annotated DEGs (FDR < 0.01 and |log2FC| ≥ 0.5) in spleen, liver and kidney across three comparisons: 1) old vs. young: wildtype control mice (22 months, n = 5) vs. young untreated 4F mice (3 months, n = 4); 2) reprogrammed vs. old: partially reprogrammed mice (22 months, n = 5) vs. wildtype control mice (22 months, n = 5); 3) reprogrammed vs. young: partially reprogrammed mice (22 months, n = 5) vs. untreated 4F mice (3 months, n = 4). (B) Directional overlap of DEGs across comparison groups. The tables show genes that are differentially expressed in both the comparison described by the row as well as in the comparison described by the column. Each cell counts genes that change in the specified directions; for example, intersecting “Upregulated DEGs old vs. young” with “Downregulated DEGs reprogrammed vs. old” counts genes that are upregulated with aging but downregulated with reprogramming. Background shading corresponds to the number of shared genes: None (0, white), Low (1–20, light blue), Moderate (21–100, medium blue), and High (>100, dark blue).
Credit
Copyright: © 2026 Meiners et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Usage Restrictions
With credit to the original source.
License
Original content