Article Figures & Data
Figures
- FIG. 1.
PG-induced mobilization of CD66b in human neutrophils. (a) Dose-dependent mobilization of CD66b by PG. Neutrophils were incubated in the absence or presence of PG at the concentrations indicated for 40 min at 37°C. Thereafter, the surface expression of CD66b was determined by flow cytometry. The data are expressed as percent surface expression compared with cells in medium alone and are presented as means + standard errors of the means (error bars) from four independent experiments. *, P < 0.05. (b) Time-dependent mobilization of CD66b by PG. Neutrophils were incubated in the presence of PG (100 μg/ml) and investigated for their surface expression of CD66b at the time points indicated. The data are expressed as percent surface expression compared with cells in medium alone at the different time points. The data are presented as means ± standard errors of the means (error bars) from four independent experiments. (c) Comparison of PG- and fMLP-induced CD66b mobilization. Neutrophils were incubated in medium alone, in the presence of PG (100 μg/ml), or in the presence of fMLP (1 μM) for 40 min. The data are presented as means + standard errors of the means (error bars) from four independent experiments.
- FIG. 2.
PG does not induce mobilization of several surface activation markers in human eosinophils. (a) Mobilization of CD11b, CD63, and CD66b during short-duration incubation. Eosinophils were incubated with PG (100 μg/ml), in the presence or absence of the eosinophil-activating cytokine IL-5 (1 nM), for 40 min or in the presence of the calcium ionophore A23187 for 20 min. The data are expressed as percent surface expression compared with cells in medium alone and represent means ± standard errors of the means (error bars) from four independent experiments. (b) Mobilization of CD44 and CD69, respectively, after incubation for 4 and 18 h, respectively. The data are expressed as percent surface expression compared with cells in medium alone and represent means ± standard errors of the means (error bars) from four independent experiments.
- FIG. 3.
Detection of TLR-2 and TLR-4 on the surface of neutrophils and eosinophils. The presence of TLR-2 and the presence of TLR-4 were detected by specific monoclonal antibodies, and secondary FITC-conjugated antibodies were detected by flow cytometry. (a) Neutrophils show a stronger signal for TLR-2 and a weaker signal for TLR-4. An isotype-matched irrelevant antibody serves as a control and represents background (black area). (b) In eosinophils, neither TLR-2 nor TLR-4 could be detected. The data shown are representative of four separate experiments.
