Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2019 Dec 1.
Published in final edited form as: Adv Mater. 2018 Nov 2;30(52):e1805007. doi: 10.1002/adma.201805007

Figure 3.

Figure 3.

a) Treatment scheme of orthotopic CT26-FL3 tumor. b) Growth curves of orthotopic CT26-FL3 tumors in PBS, α-PD-L1, LPS trap plasmid and LPS trap+α-PD-L1 treated groups (n = 6–10 mice per group). c) Representative bioluminescence imaging of tumor burden, applying a maximum luminescence threshold of 2 × 109. d) Kaplan-Meier survival curves; the difference between different groups is significant by log-rank test. e) Flow cytometry analysis of orthotopic CT26-FL3 tumor after various treatments (on day 27, n = 4). f) CD4+ and CD8+ T cell depletion test of the LPS trap+α-PD-L1 treatment (n = 5 mice per group). Rat IgG, α-CD8 or α-CD4 (200 μg/mouse, i.p. injection) together with LPS trap+α-PD-L1 were given on day 15, 18 and 21. ns, no significant difference, *** p<0.001. g) Pathological analyses of liver after various treatments. The regions pointed by blue arrows are metastasis sites. The photos were taken at 10× magnification. h) Treatment scheme and tumor growth curves of CT26-FL3 liver metastatic tumors (n = 5 mice per group). Significant differences were assessed in b, f, h using two-way ANOVA with multiple comparisons and in e using t test. Results are presented as mean (SD).