Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2019 Feb 12.
Published in final edited form as: Immunohorizons. 2018 Sep;2(8):262–273. doi: 10.4049/immunohorizons.1800042

TABLE II.

Pairwise analysis of mAbs in passive protection studies

PH12 TB12 LE4 CH1 SWB1 PA1 6C4 WECH1 SyH7

TB12 1.00000a
LE4 0.93744a 0.93744a
CH1 0.01468 0.01468 0.00528
SWB1 0.01891 0.01891 0.04341 0.23219
PA1 0.00195 0.00195 0.00094 0.93744 0.10706
6C4 0.00020 0.00020 1.8 × 10–5 1.8 × 10–5 0.00087 0.00016
WECH1 0.00228 0.00228 0.00149 0.46408 0.29947 0.65094 1.80 × 10–5
SyH7 0.00067 0.00067 0.00149 0.36137 0.32140 0.23258 0.00020 0.71816
b 0.00020 0.00020 1.8 × 10–5 1.8 × 10–5 0.00067 0.00015 (0.0339)c 1.8 × 10–5 0.00020

Survival analysis between groups using pairwise comparisons with the log-rank test. The p values were adjusted for multiple testing with the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.

a

The three MAbs (TB12, PH12, and LE4) were not significantly different from each other in the protection assay but were more effective in vivo than the other six mAbs tested, as noted by the boldface text.

b

Dash (—) indicates control mice that received ricin only.

c

Parentheses indicate that mice treated with 6C4 died significantly earlier than control mice.