Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Jun 22.
Published in final edited form as: Eur J Immunol. 2012 Aug 8;42(10):2667–2682. doi: 10.1002/eji.201142161

Figure 8. HES treatment at challenge suppresses eosinophil responses, while heat-treated HES or mammalian TGF-β does not.

Figure 8

All mice were sensitised with OVA-Alum on d0 and d14, then 20 μg HES (or controls of 20 μg heat-treated HES (HT HES) or 4 ng recombinant mammalian TGF-β (TGF)) were coadministered with challenge of 20 μg OVA protein administered intratracheally on days 28-30. Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) cells and lung tissue for cell preparation were collected at day 31. Shown are (A) the numbers of total BAL cells and cell types, (B) the numbers of total lung preparation cells and cell types, (C) the total BAL cell numbers with HT HES control, (D) SiglecF+CD11c− BAL eosinophil numbers with HT HES control (E) SiglecF+CD11c− proportions of total BAL cells with HT HES control, and (F) SiglecF+CD11c− BAL eosinophil numbers with TGF-β control. Results are representative of 3 repeat experiments, each with 4-6 mice per group. Error bars are SEM. *p<0.05, ***p<0.001, one-way ANOVA, with a Tukey’s post test.