To manage (CT). #–significant in comparison to AML, –significant compared to CYT, –significant in comparison to AML CYT. ,#, , –p 0.05; ,##, –p 0.01; , –p 0.001. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 11157 4 of 17 Scale bar: 500 m.Following the above final results, we examined the impact of post Razoxane Cell Cycle/DNA Damage injection of GCSF around the expression levels ofabove final results, we examined the effect of post injection of GCSF on the Following the GCSF and GCSF-R in the testes of AML- and CYT-treated mice. Our benefits show that injection of GCSF or CYT the testes of AML- and CYT-treated mice. Our expression levels of GCSF and GCSF-R in alone or in mixture (GCSF CYT), but not AML orshow that injection of GCSF or CYT alone or in combinationPSNCBAM-1 Epigenetic Reader Domain testicular GCSF and final results AML CYT, drastically improved the expression levels of (GCSF CYT), but GCSF-R compared CYT, substantially enhanced the expression levels of testicular GCSF not AML or AML to handle mice (CT) (Figure 1E). Nonetheless, post injection of GCSF into miceGCSF-R with AML (AML GCSF) or CYT (CYT 1E). On the other hand, post CYT (AML CYT and treated compared to control mice (CT) (Figure GCSF) or AML injection of GCSF GCSF) drastically enhanced the expressionCYT (CYTtesticular or AML CYT (AML into mice treated with AML (AML GCSF) or levels of GCSF) GCSF and GCSF compared GCSF) significantly improved the expression levels of testicular GCSF and GCSF CYT to AML, CYT or AML CYT, respectively (Figure 1E). compared to AML, CYT or AML CYT, respectively (Figure 1E). two.2. Impact of GCSF on the Survival, Testicular Weight and Seminiferous Tubules Histology and two.two. Impact of AML- and CYT-Treated Mice Parametersof GCSF around the Survival, Testicular Weight and Seminiferous Tubules Histology and Parameters of AML- and CYT-Treated Mice two.2.1. Mouse Survival two.two.1. Mouse Survival We injected GCSF at three different time points (before, by means of and just after cytarabine We injected GCSF at 3 different time points (before, by means of and soon after cytarabine treatment) in order to come across by far the most efficient time point of injection. Our outcomes show that treatment) so that you can come across one of the most productive time point of injection. Our benefits show that injection on the mice with PBS (manage, CT), GCSF (GCSF) or cytarabine (CYT) didn’t injection of the mice with PBS (manage, CT), GCSF (GCSF) or cytarabine (CYT) didn’t influence their survival (Figure 2A). Injection of AML cells in mixture with GCSF (AML influence their survival (Figure 2A). Injection of AML cells in mixture with GCSF (AML GCSF), extended mice life from 3 weeks to three.5 weeks (Figure 2A). Injection of GCSF to GCSF), extended mice life from 3 weeks to three.five weeks (Figure 2A). Injection of GCSF to the the mixture group (AML CYT) just before CYT remedy (Before) didn’t extend the mixture group (AML CYT) just before CYT therapy (Before) did not extend the life life in the mice (6.5 weeks maximum). However, injection of GCSF following CYT treatof the mice (6.five weeks maximum). However, injection of GCSF following CYT remedy ment (By way of) and soon after CYT treatment (Just after) extended mice life from 6.5 weeks (Via) and right after CYT treatment (Soon after) extended mice life from six.five weeks (with out (without having GCSF; AML 7CYT)7.five 7 and 7.five weeks, respectively (Figure 2A). Following these GCSF; AML CYT) to and to weeks, respectively (Figure 2A). Following these final results, we results, we chose to inject GCSF, as typically performed after (post injection) chemotherapy chose to inject GCSF, as generally.
