Table 2.

Severity of GVHD in BMT recipients

GroupTime of analysis (wk)NGVHD score (mean ± SEM)
LiverSkinSmall intestineLarge intestine
A. Allogeneic BMT → vehicle 2-4 2.8 ± 0.1 1.8 ± 0.1 0.8 ± 0.1 1.2 ± 0.4 
B. Allogeneic BMT → WHI-P131 > 8 1.0 ± 0.3 0.5 ± 0.0 0.5 ± 0.0 0.1 ± 0.1* 
C. Allogeneic BMT + BCL-1 → vehicle 2-4 13 2.6 ± 0.1 1.9 ± 0.3 0.7 ± 0.1 1.2 ± 0.2 
D. Allogeneic BMT + BCL-1 → WHI-P131 2-4 2.0 ± 0.0* 1.0 ± 0.3* 0.2 ± 0.1* 0.5 ± 0.0* 
E. Allogeneic BMT + BCL-1 → WHI-P131 > 8 0.6 ± 0.1 0.0 ± 0.0 0.3 ± 0.1* 0.1 ± 0.1* 
F. Syngeneic BMT (control) 2-4 17 0.5 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.1 0.3 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.1 
G. Syngeneic BMT (control) > 8 0.5 ± 0.0 0.0 ± 0.0 0.1 ± 0.1 0.0 ± 0.0 
GroupTime of analysis (wk)NGVHD score (mean ± SEM)
LiverSkinSmall intestineLarge intestine
A. Allogeneic BMT → vehicle 2-4 2.8 ± 0.1 1.8 ± 0.1 0.8 ± 0.1 1.2 ± 0.4 
B. Allogeneic BMT → WHI-P131 > 8 1.0 ± 0.3 0.5 ± 0.0 0.5 ± 0.0 0.1 ± 0.1* 
C. Allogeneic BMT + BCL-1 → vehicle 2-4 13 2.6 ± 0.1 1.9 ± 0.3 0.7 ± 0.1 1.2 ± 0.2 
D. Allogeneic BMT + BCL-1 → WHI-P131 2-4 2.0 ± 0.0* 1.0 ± 0.3* 0.2 ± 0.1* 0.5 ± 0.0* 
E. Allogeneic BMT + BCL-1 → WHI-P131 > 8 0.6 ± 0.1 0.0 ± 0.0 0.3 ± 0.1* 0.1 ± 0.1* 
F. Syngeneic BMT (control) 2-4 17 0.5 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.1 0.3 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.1 
G. Syngeneic BMT (control) > 8 0.5 ± 0.0 0.0 ± 0.0 0.1 ± 0.1 0.0 ± 0.0 

Scoring was done as described in “Materials and methods.” Statistical analysis of the differences between the groups (B versus A and D versus C and E versus C) was done by Student ttest.

*

P < .05.

P < .005.

P < .0001.

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal