Table 1.
Susceptibility is equivalent among host genotypes
| Effect | Mean ± SE | Test |
| Infectious virus particles | ANOVA: F2,33 = 0.07, P = 0.93 | |
| BALB/cdd (n = 12) | 115.33 FFU/spleen ± 52.76 | |
| BALB/ckk (n = 12) | 149 FFU/spleen ± 105.42 | |
| BALB/cbb (n = 12) | 152.8 FFU/spleen ± 61.24 | |
| Proviral load | ANOVA: F2,30 = 0.94, P = 0.40 | |
| BALB/cdd (n = 11) | 0.01 F-MuLV/GAPDH copy no. ± 0.01 | |
| BALB/ckk (n = 10) | 0.01 F-MuLV/GAPDH copy no. ± 0.01 | |
| BALB/cbb (n = 12) | 0.004 F-MuLV/GAPDH copy no. ± 0.009 | |
| Splenomegaly | ANOVA: F2,33 = 0.05, P = 0.95 | |
| BALB/cdd (n = 12) | 0.17 g ± 0.02 | |
| BALB/ckk (n = 12) | 0.16 g ± 0.02 | |
| BALB/cbb (n = 12) | 0.18 g ± 0.02 |
Comparisons of unpassaged virus fitness and virulence measures between groups of infected animals from each of the three host genotypes. There are no significant differences in measures of pathogen fitness or virulence between these host MHC genotypes. Based on these results, we conclude that there are no underlying susceptibility differences between these MHC genotypes to infection with our unpassaged virus stock.