Fig. 7.
Fig. 7. Inhibition of cellular infiltration into DTH footpads by anti-IL-16 treatment. / Sensitized mice were treated with neutralizing mAb against IL-16 (14.1, B) or an isotype-matched control mAb (S-S.1, A) and challenged with mBSA into footpads. Soft tissue samples from each footpad were collected 24 hours after the Ag challenge, and the tissue section was immunohistochemically analyzed using anti-CD4 (GK1.5, A and B). The section was also stained with anti-CD8 and antimacrophage mAbs (53.6.7 and F4/80, respectively). No staining was observed when isotype-matched control mAbs (R35-95 and R35-38) were used (data not shown). Positively stained cells were counted in 10 randomly selected fields (each [100 μm]2) (C). Data are shown as mean ± SD of 5 anti-IL-16–treated mice and 8 control mAb-treated mice. *indicates P < .01 compared with control mAb. Similar results were obtained in 2 independent experiments.

Inhibition of cellular infiltration into DTH footpads by anti-IL-16 treatment.

Sensitized mice were treated with neutralizing mAb against IL-16 (14.1, B) or an isotype-matched control mAb (S-S.1, A) and challenged with mBSA into footpads. Soft tissue samples from each footpad were collected 24 hours after the Ag challenge, and the tissue section was immunohistochemically analyzed using anti-CD4 (GK1.5, A and B). The section was also stained with anti-CD8 and antimacrophage mAbs (53.6.7 and F4/80, respectively). No staining was observed when isotype-matched control mAbs (R35-95 and R35-38) were used (data not shown). Positively stained cells were counted in 10 randomly selected fields (each [100 μm]2) (C). Data are shown as mean ± SD of 5 anti-IL-16–treated mice and 8 control mAb-treated mice. *indicates P < .01 compared with control mAb. Similar results were obtained in 2 independent experiments.

Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal