Table 1.
DC Marker | Receptor Targeting | GFP+ Cells | GFP− Cells |
---|---|---|---|
CD40 | Untargeted | 4.16 | 3.32 |
Isotype | 3.80 | 3.01 | |
Anti-DC-SIGN | 3.73 | 3.11 | |
3JCLI4 | 3.63 | 3.34 | |
FNfn10 | 3.67 | 2.92 | |
Chemerin (FAAS) | 4.11 | 3.29 | |
Chemerin (FAFS) |
4.34 |
3.5 |
|
CD86 | Untargeted | 142 | 82 |
Isotype | 138 | 86 | |
Anti-DC-SIGN | 152 | 95 | |
3JCLI4 | 157 | 102 | |
FNfn10 | 105 | 63 | |
Chemerin (FAAS) | 126 | 74 | |
Chemerin (FAFS) |
140 |
85 |
|
Class II | Untargeted | 213 | 127 |
Isotype | 240 | 131 | |
Anti-DC-SIGN | 187 | 120 | |
3JCLI4 | 253 | 154 | |
FNfn10 | 188 | 112 | |
Chemerin (FAAS) | 202 | 114 | |
Chemerin (FAFS) | 224 | 140 |
DC were transduced with Ad-FBAP-GFP targeted with the indicated molecules (see Fig. 2 legend). 48h later, cells were harvested and subjected to flow cytometric analysis using antibodies against CD40, CD86, and MHC Class II. Analysis of staining was then performed separately for gated GFP+ and GFP− cells within the same culture (i.e., cells that were transduced by the vector as well as “bystander” cells). Data shown represent mean fluorescence intensity values from three replicate measurements, taken from a single experiment. The data are representative of results from 3 independent experiments.