. 2017 Jan 17;114(5):E801–E810. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1619265114

Table S2.

BrdU and immunolabeling of WT and lpg2⁻ PIPs at the footpad site

Labeling parameter	WT, >5 mo	lpg2⁻, 1 mo	P < 0.05?	N, experiments (E)/mice (M)/parasites (P), in total
% BrdU⁺	19 ± 6%	16 ± 3%	No	WT, 2E/5M/5289P^*
% BrdU⁺	19 ± 6%	16 ± 3%	No	lpg2⁻, 2E/7M/1003P^*
% of BrdU⁺ parasites in iNOS⁺ host cell	85 ± 13%	80 ± 28%	No	WT, 2E/3M/254P^*
% of BrdU⁺ parasites in iNOS⁺ host cell	85 ± 13%	80 ± 28%	No	lpg2⁻, 1E/2M/123P^*
ER-TR7⁺	2 ± 3%	0 ± 0%	No	WT, 3E/6M/528P
ER-TR7⁺	2 ± 3%	0 ± 0%	No	lpg2⁻, 3E/10M/616P
F4/80⁺	79 ± 12%	85 ± 15%	No	WT, 3E/8M/983P
F4/80⁺	79 ± 12%	85 ± 15%	No	lpg2^−, 3E/10M/712P
CD11c⁺	13 ± 7%	46 ± 29%	Yes	WT, 3E/8M/1074P
CD11c⁺	13 ± 7%	46 ± 29%	Yes	lpg2⁻, 3E/10M/1004P
F4/80⁺ CD11c⁻	78 ± 9%	50 ± 30%	No	WT, 2E/4M/266P
F4/80⁺ CD11c⁺	16 ± 6%	49 ± 31%	No	lpg2⁻, 3E/10M/606P
F4/80⁻ CD11c⁺	3 ± 3%	0 ± 0%	No
F4/80⁻ CD11c⁻	3 ± 3%	2 ± 1%	No
iNOS⁺	59 ± 15%	70 ± 22%	No	WT, 3E/8M/2535P
iNOS⁺	59 ± 15%	70 ± 22%	No	lpg2⁻, 3E/8M/2535P
F4/80⁺ iNOS⁺	42 ± 14%	52 ± 23%	No	WT, 3E/8M/983P
F4/80⁺ iNOS⁺	42 ± 14%	52 ± 23%	No	lpg2⁻, 3E/10M/712P
CD11c⁺ iNOS⁺	10 ± 6%	44 ± 29%	Yes	WT, 3E/8M/1074P
CD11c⁺ iNOS⁺	10 ± 6%	44 ± 29%	Yes	lpg2⁻, 3E/10M/1004P
RELMα⁺	0 ± 0%	0 ± 0%	No	WT, 2E/3M/284P
RELMα⁺	0 ± 0%	0 ± 0%	No	lpg2⁻, 3E/3M/346P
CD206⁺	0 ± 0%	52 ± 28%	Yes	WT, 2E/3M/218P
CD206⁺	0 ± 0%	52 ± 28%	Yes	lpg2⁻, 3E/5M/504P
Arg1⁺, within	3 ± 3%	37 ± 41%	No	WT, 3E/5M/317P
Arg1, adjacent	12 ± 11%	35 ± 32%	No	lpg2⁻, 2E/9M/1105P
Arg1, within + adjacent	15 ± 14%	72 ± 26%	Yes
Arg2⁺	0 ± 0%	0 ± 0%	No	WT, 2e/2M/175P
Arg2⁺	0 ± 0%	0 ± 0%	No	lpg2⁻, 3E/5M/477P

Data for WT are taken from Table 1 and reproduced to facilitate comparison.

BrdU-injected mice.