Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2015 Jun 3.
Published in final edited form as: Photochem Photobiol. 2013 Nov 28;90(1):145–154. doi: 10.1111/php.12194

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Cytotoxicity as a function of a) CPD density or b) 6-4PP density, for NHF1 exposed to a solar simulator (UVA–UVB, closed circles), UVB only (open squares), or UVC (open diamonds). Percent survival measured by [3H]-thymidine incorporation 72 h post irradiation as compared to the unirradiated sham (n = 2–4, mean ± SEM). There was no statistical difference between the D0 values expressed in terms of CPD density (Wald test p-values were 0.17 for UVA–UVB vs UVB, 0.23 for UVA–UVB vs UVC, and 0.41 for UVB vs UVC). Regression analysis showed that the UVA–UVB survival curve was distinct from those for UVB and UVC (P < 0.005). When expressed in terms of 6-4PP density, the D0 value for the solar simulator was statistically different from the UVB or UVC source (P = 0.007 and P < 0.0001, respectively). Regression analysis also showed that the solar simulator survival curve was statistically distinct from the UVB and UVC sources when compared on the basis of 6-4PP density (P < 0.0001 for both).