Table 2.

Effect of nystatin and filipin on caveolae-dependent internalization

CellsChemokineControlInhibitor
FilipinNystatin
CHO.CCR5 MIP-1α 50.8 ± 3.2 (6) 64.5 ± 4.5 (5)* 97.2 ± 8.8 (6) 
 RANTES 54.4 ± 3.1 (5) 63.9 ± 4.3 (6) 84.0 ± 4.2 (6) 
 MIP-1β 85.6 ± 3.7 (6) 95.0 ± 3.6 (3) 91.0 ± 4.6 (3) 
CHO.CCR5.CD4 MIP-1α 48.6 ± 3.6 (7) 111.2 ± 2.4 (4) 70.8 ± 3.7 (5) 
 RANTES 59.6 ± 4.8 (8) 77.4 ± 3.2 (8) 77.7 ± 4.9 (8) 
 MIP-1β 42.2 ± 10.9 (5) 98.5 ± 6.1 (9) 92.7 ± 6.9 (9) 
CellsChemokineControlInhibitor
FilipinNystatin
CHO.CCR5 MIP-1α 50.8 ± 3.2 (6) 64.5 ± 4.5 (5)* 97.2 ± 8.8 (6) 
 RANTES 54.4 ± 3.1 (5) 63.9 ± 4.3 (6) 84.0 ± 4.2 (6) 
 MIP-1β 85.6 ± 3.7 (6) 95.0 ± 3.6 (3) 91.0 ± 4.6 (3) 
CHO.CCR5.CD4 MIP-1α 48.6 ± 3.6 (7) 111.2 ± 2.4 (4) 70.8 ± 3.7 (5) 
 RANTES 59.6 ± 4.8 (8) 77.4 ± 3.2 (8) 77.7 ± 4.9 (8) 
 MIP-1β 42.2 ± 10.9 (5) 98.5 ± 6.1 (9) 92.7 ± 6.9 (9) 

Cells were treated with the inhibitors nystatin and filipin, as described, before internalization was induced with MIP-1α, RANTES, or MIP-1β, respectively. Cells that were not treated with inhibitor served as control for internalization. Data represent mean ± SEM of at least 3 independent experiments.

*

P < .05, relative to control.

P < .001, relative to control.

P < .01, relative to control.

Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal