Table 1. A summary of the pharmacological response to emodepside in transgenic lines expressing either C. elegans or parasite slo-1 under the control of C. elegans-derived promoters.
Strain/line* | N2# | Cel-snb-1::Aca-slo-1 | N2 | Cel-snb-1::Con-slo-1 |
Hill slope | -0.74 | -0.85 | -0.83 | -0.53 |
95% confidence interval | -0.94 to -0.54 | -1.32 to -0.37 | -1.07 to -0.58 | -0.82 to -0.23 |
EC50 [µM] | 0.1442 | 0.1972 | 0.1285 | 0.2397 |
95% confidence interval [µM] | 0.11 to 0.2 | 0.01 to 0.42 | 0 to 0.19 | 0 to 0.82 |
Bottom [%] | 0 | 45.67 | 2.0 | 34.36 |
95% confidence interval [%] | 0.0 to 7.42 | 36.36 to 54.99 | 0.0 to 9.96 | 16.80 to 51.93 |
R2 | 0.96 | 0.83 | 0.95 | 0.76 |
p (4 parameters)x | <0.0001 | < 0.0001 | ||
p (EC50)x | 0.4367 | 0.3458 | ||
p (bottom)x | 0.0012 | 0.0263 |
The data given are the Hill slope, EC50 and bottom values for the four parameter logistic inhibition curves with 95% confidence intervals. Top values were always close to 100% due to normalization to the highest absolute value in each data set. The values were determined from pooled data for 3 experiments.
#: For both A. caninum experiments, the same N2 control was used.
*Since all curves were significantly different from slo-1(js379) (p<0.0001), which did not show a concentration-dependent response at all, this comparison is not listed here.
Comparisons were done for all four parameters of a concentration-response-curves (Hill slope, EC50, top and bottom). If significant differences were obtained with this calculation, separate comparisons for EC50 and bottom followed.