Skip to main content
. 2023 Jul 28;14:4546. doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-40151-x

Fig. 5. Protective efficacy of WT and germline-reverted IgGs.

Fig. 5

a Schematic of liver burden assay used to compare protective efficacy. b Liver luminescence measurements 42 h post-challenge; expressed as log total flux on the Y-axis. Each group (mAb) contained seven mice. Geometric mean and SD are indicated as black and colored lines, respectively. A two-sided Mann–Whitney U test was used to compare efficacy relative to naïve (no mAb) and between WT and mutant mAbs. Percent inhibition listed is relative to naïve. Note significant reduction in percent inhibition of each mutant mAb relative to the WT counterpart, indicating a key role of somatically mutated homotypic interactions in protective efficacy in this antibody family. Significance: *Naïve vs 239R, p = 0.0379; *Naïve vs 311R, p = 0.0175; *Naïve vs 356R, p = 0.0111; ***p = 0.0006. Adjustments were not made for multiple comparisons. For each group (antibody), N = 7 mice; data points represent individual mice. See also Fig. S7. Source data are provided as a Source Data file.