FIGURE 2

FIGURE 2

Sensory OLs maintain a distinct sheath profile. (A) Confocal z-stack still images of Tg(nkx2.2a:gfp);Tg(sox10:mrfp) animals at 72 hpf showing the distinct sheath profile of sensory OLs compared to non-sensory OLs. Green arrows represent a sensory OL. Blue arrows represent a non-sensory OL. White and black boxes represent examples of sheathes. (B) Quantification of the average sheath length of sensory OLs compared to non-sensory OLs (p < 0.0001). (C) Quantification of the average sheath width of sensory OLs compared to non-sensory OLs (p < 0.0001). (D) 3D IMARIS surface rendering (left) of a sensory-related OLC in Tg(sox10:mrfp);Tg(ngn1:gfp) animals from a confocal z-stack image (right) represented at three different angles to show ensheathment of sensory axons. White dashed line represents the cross section view. (E) Confocal z-stack images (top row) and IMARIS 3D surface rendering (bottom row) of an individual sensory OL in the same Tg(sox10:mrfp) animal at 3dpf, 4dpf, 5dpf, and 6dpf (top row). Green arrowheads represent the sensory axon. Grayed out regions on surface rendering represent sensory OL cell body. (F) Quantification of the average sheath length of the same OL in the same animal over time. (G) Quantification of the average sheath width of the same OL in the same animals over time. Scale bar equals 10 μm (A,D,E). All images are orientated anterior to left, posterior to right, dorsal up and ventral down.