Fig. 4.
Fig. 4. Eosinophil rolling and firm adhesion on VCAM-1 2d and VCAM-1 7d. / Eosinophils were infused at a flow rate of 0.7 and 1.4 dyn/cm2 into a parallel plate flow chamber containing VCAM-1 2d–, VCAM-1 7d–, or BSA-coated coverslip. The number of rolling eosinophils (A) and adherent eosinophils (B) during continuous flow periods of 2 minutes was recorded and subjected to offline analysis. Results of experiments performed are presented as the mean ± SEM (n = 4 experiments). At flow rates of 0.7 dyn/cm2, significant numbers of eosinophils rolled on VCAM-1 2d (P = .01 vs BSA) and VCAM-1 7d (P = .01 vs BSA) as well as adhered to VCAM-1 2d (P = .01 vs BSA) and VCAM-7d (P = .001 vs BSA). There was no significant difference in the number of eosinophils rolling or adhering to VCAM-1 2d vs VCAM-1 7d (P = not significant).

Eosinophil rolling and firm adhesion on VCAM-1 2d and VCAM-1 7d.

Eosinophils were infused at a flow rate of 0.7 and 1.4 dyn/cm2 into a parallel plate flow chamber containing VCAM-1 2d–, VCAM-1 7d–, or BSA-coated coverslip. The number of rolling eosinophils (A) and adherent eosinophils (B) during continuous flow periods of 2 minutes was recorded and subjected to offline analysis. Results of experiments performed are presented as the mean ± SEM (n = 4 experiments). At flow rates of 0.7 dyn/cm2, significant numbers of eosinophils rolled on VCAM-1 2d (P = .01 vs BSA) and VCAM-1 7d (P = .01 vs BSA) as well as adhered to VCAM-1 2d (P = .01 vs BSA) and VCAM-7d (P = .001 vs BSA). There was no significant difference in the number of eosinophils rolling or adhering to VCAM-1 2d vs VCAM-1 7d (P = not significant).

Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal