Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Nov 15.
Published in final edited form as: J Immunol. 2020 Oct 14;205(10):2667–2678. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1901520

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Impacts of targeting CD25 or IL-2 on Treg cells

WT B6 mice were treated IP with PBS, PC61N297Q, PC612a, or anti-IL-2 (JES6), and sacrificed for analysis after seven days. (A) Representative flow cytometric analysis of Foxp3 and CD25 (clone PC61) expression by gated splenic CD4+ T cells. Foxp3+ Treg cells are gated as indicated. Right, Graphical analysis of frequency and total number of splenic Treg cells in each treatment group. (B) Representative flow cytometry analysis of CD44 and CD62L expression by gated splenic Foxp3+ Treg cells showing gates used to define cTreg and eTreg populations. Right, graphical analysis of the ratio of cTreg cells to eTreg cells in the spleens of each treatment group. (C) Representative flow cytometry histograms of CD25 7D4 staining in Treg cells. Right, graphical analysis of fold change in gMFI over controls of CD25 PC61 and CD25 7D4 staining by Treg cells in each treatment group. (D) Graphical analysis of frequency, total number, and fold change gMFI of CD25+ (7D4) Foxp3-CD44+CD4+ splenic T cells in each treatment group. Data is combined from three independent experiments, 6–9 mice per group total. Significance determined by one-way ANOVA with Tukey post-test for multiple comparisons. *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001, ****p<0.0001.