International Scholarly Research Notices / 2012 / Article / Tab 1

Research Article

Epicutaneous Immunotherapy Compared with Sublingual Immunotherapy in Mice Sensitized to Pollen (Phleum pratense)

Table 1

Quantification of specific IgE (ng/mL), IgG1, and IgG2a (μg/mL) for EPIT, SLIT, sham, and Control (C) groups.

Pollen-specific antibodiesEPITSLITShamC

IgED057 (±9.8)48 (±1.7)84 (±10.5)Und
D2186 (±8.7)88 (±10.4)79 (±7.1)Und
D3855 (±1.7)138 (±43.4)88 (±12.4)Und
D6371 (±9.0)***58 (±4.5)***137 (±11.9)Und

IgG1D01.1 (±0.15)1.1 (±0.1)1.3 (±0.2)Und
D2118.2 (±1.36)10.6 (±0.8)7.7 (±1.3)Und
D3857.1 (±3.6)37.5 (±4.9)10.3 (±2.1)Und
D63113.6 (±13.2)***75.8 (±20.2)***18.0 (±3.6)Und

IgG2aD00.06 (±0.001)0.01 (±0.002)0.02 (±0.002)Und
D210.03 (± 0.006)0.05 (± 0.011)0.05 (± 0.032)Und
D380.03 (± 0.012)0.08 (± 0.042)0.03 (± 0.011)Und
D630.14 (± 0.008),***0.09 (± 0.031)*0.001 (± 0.001)Und

Statistical comparison, EPIT versus SLIT: 𝑃 < 0 . 0 5 .
Statistical comparison, EPIT, or SLIT versus Sham: * 𝑃 < 0 . 0 5 , ** 𝑃 < 0 . 0 1 , *** 𝑃 < 0 . 0 0 1 .
C, control; EPIT: epicutaneous immunotherapy; IgE: immunoglobulin E; IgG1: immunoglobulin G1; IgG2a: immunoglobulin G2a; SLIT: sublingual immunotherapy; Und: undetectable.

Article of the Year Award: Outstanding research contributions of 2020, as selected by our Chief Editors. Read the winning articles.