Extended Data Fig. 7: Comparison of aaTECs with conventional TECs and mimetic cells.

a, 3D reconstruction and representative images of high-density TEC region from 12-mo Foxn1^nTnG mice stained with DCLK1 or UEA1 to highlight tuft cells and M-like cells, respectively. b, Flow cytometry plots showing proportion of selected mimetic cells (tuft, corneocyte and M-cells) in 2-mo (n = 6) and 18-mo (n = 8) Foxn1^nTnG mice. Mimetic cells were first gated on EpCAM⁺GFP⁺ cells, then mTECs (UEA1^hiLy51^lo) were assessed for the mimetic cell markers DCLK1 (tuft cells), GP2 (microfold cells), and Ly6D (corneocytes). Bar graph shows quantification of mimetic cell numbers. c, Flow cytometry plots showing mimetic cell frequency in 18-mo Foxn1^nTnG mice (n = 8) gated on EpCAM⁺GFP⁺UEA1⁻Ly51⁻ DN-TECs. Bar graph shows quantification of mimetic cells comparing mTECs (as in Extended Data Fig. 7b) and DN-TECs. d, Aire and Foxn1 expression in TEC subsets. e, Representative confocal images of thymic sections from 12-mo Foxn1^nTnG mice stained with anti-AIRE, with the medulla or high-density TECs highlighted. Scale bar: 50μm. Summary data represents mean ± SEM; each dot represents an individual biological replicate. Statistics for b-c were generated using two-tailed Mann–Whitney tests comparing within individual mimetic cell subsets.