Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Jan 1.
Published in final edited form as: Am J Transplant. 2019 Aug 13;20(1):88–100. doi: 10.1111/ajt.15533

Figure 1. CD2 expression among unstimulated T-cell subsets.

Figure 1.

(A) Gating strategy for the subsets of interest on which CD2 expression was assessed. (B,C) Median fluorescence intensity of CD2 (using Siplizumab and the commercially available clone RPA-2.10) among T-cell subsets (mean ± SD); * p < 0.05 compared to rTreg, n = 10 unique donors (repeated-measures ANOVA and Tukey’s multiple comparisons test). Significant differences in selected additional comparisons:

- [Siplizumab] CD4+ Naïve vs Central Memory: p < 0.0001 – CD4+ Naïve vs Effectory Memory p = 0.0004 – CD8+ Naïve vs Central Memory: p < 0.0001 – CD8+ Naïve vs Effectory Memory p = 0.0047 – nsTregs vs CD4+ Central Memory: p = 0.0116 – nsTregs vs CD4+ Effector Memory: p = 0.0016 – nsTregs vs CD8+ Central Memory: p = 0.0003 – nsTregs vs CD8+ Effector Memory: p = 0.0459 – aTregs vs CD4+ Effector Memory: p = 0.0249.

- [RPA-2.10] CD4+ Naïve vs Central Memory: p < 0.0001 – CD4+ Naïve vs Effectory Memory p < 0.0001 – CD8+ Naïve vs Central Memory: p < 0.0001 – CD8+ Naïve vs Effectory Memory p = 0.0003 – nsTregs vs CD4+ Central Memory: p = 0.0025 – nsTregs vs CD4+ Effector Memory: p = 0.0006 – nsTregs vs CD8+ Central Memory: p = 0.0019 – nsTregs vs CD8+ Effector Memory: p = 0.0092 – aTregs vs CD4+ Effector Memory: p = 0.0154.