Fig 1: CD105neg fibroblasts restrict tumor growth in vivo(A) Flow cytometry analysis of co-implanted GFPpos CD105pos or CD105neg PaFs 7 days after co-injection.(B) Tumor growth of subcutaneous injection of 105 PDA tumor cells or co-transplantation with 105 CD105pos or CD105neg PaFs in syngeneic B6 mice. n = 5 mice per condition. Data are representative of n = 4 separate experiments. For the combined condition a 1:1 mixture of CD105pos:CD105neg PaFs was used and the total number of PaFs kept constant.(C) Kaplan-Meier analysis of tumors exceeding a threshold volume of 400 mm3 (n = 4 independent studies, in total n = 14–22 mice per condition).(D–F) As for (B) but with NOD-scid.Il2rg−/− (n = 4 to 5 per condition) (D) B6.Rag1−/− (n = 6 per condition) (E), and B6.Batf3−/− (n = 8 to 9 per condition) (F) mice.(G) As for (A) but with CD105neg PaFs disrupted for H2Ab1, Cd74, and Cd80 expression. Non-targeting gRNA transfected CD105neg PaFs were used as control.(H–J) Bulk RNA-seq analysis of co-injected PDA tumor cells with CD105pos (orange) and CD105neg (purple) PaFs at day 10. Heatmap of differentially expressed genes displayed as row Z scores (H), Ingenuity Pathway Analysis of differentially activated pathways (I), and upstream regulators (J).Data are displayed as mean tumor volumes ± standard error of the mean (SEM) (B–G). Conditions were compared using two-way ANOVA (B and D–G) and log rank test (C). ∗p < 0.05, ∗∗p < 0.01, ∗∗∗p < 0.001.See also Figure S7 and Table S6.