Expression of bcl-2 family of genes during resection induced liver regeneration: Comparison between hepatectomized and sham groups

Figure 1 A: The expression of bak in 70% hepatectomized (PH) and sham (SH) groups shown in 1. 2 % agarose gel. B: The quan-titated expression of bak in 70% PH (^__·^__) or sham (^__o^__) groups. Results were expressed as mean ± SEM of triplicate animals with n=3 rats per time point. The expressions were quantitated with the expression of cyclophilin for each sample and analyzed using the Multi-Analyst software. The expression at “time 0” denoted the quantitated expression of bak in normal liver and was accepted as “1”. In comparison among the mean values at each time point, it was revealed that the means for bak in PH group were significantly less than those in SH group (P < 0.001 Mann Witney U test).

Figure 2 A: The expression of bax in 70% hepatectomized (PH) and sham (SH) groups shown in 1. 2% agarose gel. B: The quan-titated expression of bax in 70% PH (^__·^__) or sham (^__o^__) groups. Results were expressed as mean ± SEM of triplicate animals with n=3 rats per time point. The expressions were quantitated with the expression of cyclophilin for each sample and analyzed using the Multi-Analyst software. The expression at “time 0” denoted the quantitated expression of bax in normal liver and was accepted as “1”. In comparison among the mean values at each time point, it was revealed that the bax values in PH group were less than those in SH group (one-tailed P < 0.05, Mann Witney U test).

Figure 3 A: The expression of bcl-2 in 70% hepatectomized (PH) and sham (SH) groups shown in 1. 2 % agarose gel. B: The quantitated expression of bcl-2 in 70% PH (^__·^__) or sham (^__o^__) groups. Results were expressed as mean ± SEM of triplicate animals with n=3 rats per time point. The expressions were quantitated with the expression of cyclophilin for each sample and analyzed using the Multi-Analyst software. The expres-sion at “time 0” denoted the quantitated expression of bcl-2 in normal liver and was accepted as “1”. Comparing the mean values at each time point, we found no difference in bcl-2 val-ues between PH and SH group.

Figure 4 A: The expression of bcl-x_L in 70% hepatectomized (PH) and sham (SH) groups shown in 1. 2 % agarose gel. B: The quantitated expression of bcl-x_L in 70% PH (^__·^__) or sham (^__o^__) groups. Results were expressed as mean ± SEM of triplicate animals with n=3 rats per time point. The expressions were quantitated with the expression of cyclophilin for each sample and analyzed using the Multi-Analyst software. The expres-sion at “time 0” denoted the quantitated expression of bcl-x_L in normal liver and was accepted as “1”. Comparing the mean values at each time points, no difference in bcl-x_L values be-tween PH and SH groups was found.