Fig. 6

Fig. 6

Endothelial‐specific excision of the Tg(ubi:loxP‐ift54‐loxP‐myr‐mcherry,myl7:EGFP)sh488transgene causes no apparent further impairment to secondary caudal fin vasculature in ift54^tp49; Tg(ubi:loxP‐ift54‐loxP‐myr‐mcherry,myl7:EGFP)sh488 fish. A: SPIM stack projections of endothelial cells marked with Clover expression in the caudal fin of 10‐dpf and 14‐dpf Tg(ubi:loxP‐ift54‐loxP‐myr‐mcherry,myl7:EGFP)sh488 ^/+;Tg(kdrl:cre)s898 ^/+;Tg(fli1a:LIFEACT‐clover)sh467 ^/+ fish, showing endothelial‐specific Clover and myr‐mcherry expression. B: SPIM stack projections of endothelial cells marked with Clover in the caudal fin of 14‐dpf ift54 ^tp49; Tg(ubi:loxP‐ift54‐loxP‐myr‐mcherry,myl7:EGFP)sh488 ^/+;Tg(fli1a:LIFEACT‐clover)sh467 ^/+ (ift54−/−; ubi:ift54) and ift54 ^tp49; Tg(ubi:loxP‐ift54‐loxP‐myr‐mcherry,myl7:EGFP)sh488 ^/+;Tg(kdrl:cre)s898^/+;Tg(fli1a:LIFEACT‐clover)sh467 ^/+ (ift54−/−; ubi:ift54; kdrl:cre). The secondary caudal fin vasculature forms in the absence of endothelial ift54 function. C: SPIM stack projections of endothelial cells marked with Clover in the caudal fin of 13‐dpf ift54 ^tp49; Tg(ubi:loxP‐ift54‐loxP‐myr‐mcherry,myl7:EGFP)sh488 ^/+;Tg(fli1a:LIFEACT‐clover)sh467 ^/+ (ift54−/−; ubi:ift54) and ift54 ^tp49; Tg(ubi:loxP‐ift54‐loxP‐myr‐mcherry,myl7:EGFP)sh488 ^/+;Tg(kdrl:cre)s898 ^/+;Tg(fli1a:LIFEACT‐clover)sh467 ^/+ (ift54−/−; ubi:ift54; kdrl:cre) fish. The Tg(kdrl:cre)s898 ^/+ caused no apparent impairment to the developing fin vascular bed in the fish with partial transgenic rescue of ift54 ^tp49. Chart shows caudal fin vessel bed relative areas measured from SPIM images. Overlay shows median and interquartile range. Two‐tailed Mann‐Whitney test P = 0.7223