Skip to main content
. 2022 Oct 8;100(10):761–776. doi: 10.1111/imcb.12585

Figure 7.

Figure 7

Comparison of BAFF‐binding receptor expression between BAFF Tg and WT littermate controls. The surface expression of (a) BAFF‐R and (b) TACI on splenic NK cells from WT mice as compared with BAFF Tg mice. (c) Splenocytes were incubated with FLAG‐tagged BAFF followed by anti‐FLAG antibody to detect the presence of receptors that interact with BAFF. Naïve T cells served as negative controls, whereas B cells served as positive controls. Staggered histograms represent the fluorescence intensities of staining of NK, naïve T and B cells from WT (left) and BAFF Tg (right) mice with anti‐BAFF‐R, anti‐TACI and anti‐FLAG antibodies. Data shown in the bar graphs are mean ± standard error of the mean from BAFF Tg mice (n = 3 or 4) and WT littermate controls (n = 3). Data are representative of two or three independent experiments (n = 6–10) yielding similar results. *P ≤ 0.05, ****P ≤ 0.0001. BAFF, B‐cell–activating factor; BAFF‐R, BAFF receptor; MZ, marginal zone; NK, natural killer (cells); TACI, transmembrane activator and calcium modulator and cyclophilin ligand interactor; Tg, transgenic; WT, wild type.