Skip to main content
. 2006 Feb 7;107(11):4399–4406. doi: 10.1182/blood-2005-09-3776

Table 2.

Percentage of leukocyte subsets from platelet-depleted and control mice following thermal injury

Animal group, by time following injury
Percent leukocyte subset, × 109/L, mean ± SEM
No. mice* Lymphocytes Monocytes Neutrophils
24 h after injury
    CTL-Ig Sham 8 85.75 ± 1.59 4.15 ± 0.31 10.38 ± 1.40
    CTL-Ig Burn 7 68.19 ± 2.48 9.68 ± 1.06 24.60 ± 3.76
    αPLT-Ig Sham 8 87.37 ± 1.54 3.92 ± 0.30 8.00 ± 1.32
    αPLT-Ig Burn 10 75.05 ± 2.30 8.64 ± 0.67 16.92 ± 2.03
36 h after injury
    CTL-Ig Sham 3 85.37 ± 0.50 3.28 ± 0.04 9.02 ± 0.31
    CTL-Ig Burn 4 74.08 ± 2.06 9.21 ± 0.53 14.91 ± 1.78
    αPLT-Ig Sham 4 88.67 ± 0.90 3.03 ± 0.37 6.63 ± 0.48
    αPLT-Ig Burn 9 66.10 ± 1.48 13.19 ± 1.11 20.35 ± 1.64
48 h after injury
    CTL-Ig Sham 8 86.00 ± 1.51 4.43 ± 0.22 8.21 ± 1.18
    CTL-Ig Burn 7 70.86 ± 1.69 6.18 ± 0.78 22.10 ± 1.93
    αPLT-Ig Sham 7 88.18 ± 1.42 4.85 ± 0.36 6.26 ± 1.07
    αPLT-Ig Burn 5 73.24 ± 1.06 13.02 ± 0.78§ 6.11 ± 0.47

Anticoagulated whole blood from experimental or control mice was analyzed for percent lymphocytes, monocytes, and neutrophils at the times listed. Mice per group per time point are listed. Statistical significance of the data (mean ± SEM) was analyzed using the Mann-Whitney test.

*

Animals per group from 3 independent experiments.

P < .05 for CTL-Ig Burn compared with αPLT-Ig Burn.

P < .005 for CTL-Ig Burn compared with αPLT-Ig Burn.

§

P < .001 for CTL-Ig Burn compared with αPLT-Ig Burn.