TABLE 3.
EHV-1 KyA immunization increases the expression of antiviral genes in the lungs of CBA mice challenged with RacL11
Gene name | KyA-infected mice |
RacL11-infected mice |
KyA → RacL11-infected micea |
HI-KyA → RacL11-infected miceb |
||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Fold changec | P valued | Fold changec | P valued | Fold changec | P valued | Fold changec | P valued | |
RSAD2 | 6.2 | 0.024032 | 4.7 | 0.004344 | 21.6 | 0.000066 | 5.0 | 0.029294 |
MX1 | 4.5 | 0.014696 | 4.7 | 0.015646 | 29.4 | 0.000057 | 5.1 | 0.022906 |
MX2 | 2.0 | 0.046565 | 2.4 | 0.010745 | 5.5 | 0.000022 | - | |
IRF7 | 2.3 | 0.040911 | 2.7 | 0.002847 | 27.8 | 0.000002 | 2.2 | 0.049218 |
IFI44L | 2.3 | 0.039495 | 2.4 | 0.005339 | 48.2 | 0.000001 | 2.8 | 0.043189 |
IFIT1 | 4.9 | 0.022448 | 5.2 | 0.002613 | 12.9 | 0.000130 | 4.7 | 0.011233 |
IFIT2 | 3.4 | 0.039152 | 2.7 | 0.009578 | 7.9 | 0.000065 | 2.4 | 0.019820 |
IFIT3 | 2.7 | 0.034187 | 3.1 | 0.000898 | 8.5 | 0.000001 | 2.8 | 0.011494 |
ISG15 | 3.8 | 0.027831 | 4.4 | 0.004029 | 19.7 | 0.000102 | 2.6 | 0.028449 |
ISG20 | — | — | 3.9 | 0.000062 | — | |||
OAS1a | — | 2.0 | 0.001532 | 11.1 | 0.000009 | — | ||
OAS2 | — | — | 0.006082 | 9.8 | 0.000087 | — | ||
OASL2 | 2.1 | 0.025561 | 2.5 | 0.000725 | 8.4 | 0.000008 | — | |
GBP2 | 2.0 | 0.036321 | — | 4.4 | 0.000159 | — | ||
SLC15A3 | — | — | 3.1 | 0.000657 | — | |||
IFI204 (IFI16) | 3.0 | 0.053942 | 2.0 | 0.062900 | 29.7 | 0.000098 | 2.5 | 0.038217 |
IFN-γ | — | — | 8.5 | 0.000413 | — |
CBA mice immunized with EHV-1 KyA were challenged with pathogenic RacL11 at 3 days postimmunization.
CBA mice immunized with heat-inactivated EHV-1 KyA were challenged with pathogenic RacL11 at 3 days postimmunization.
Mean fold change in expression from three replicate experiments at 8 h postinfection (for KyA- or RacL11-infected mice) or 8 h post-RacL11 challenge (for KyA → RacL11- or HI-KyA → RacL11-infected mice). —, fold difference of <±2.0 between infected and mock-infected lungs.
Statistics for the three replicates of each gene were calculated independently. Mean signals were compared by using a t test analysis assuming equal variances and 6 degrees of freedom.