Characterization of plasma cytokine response to intraperitoneally administered LPS & subdiaphragmatic branch vagus nerve stimulation in rat model

Figures

• 

  Fig 1. Time flow diagram outlining the experimental process. Process included blood collection, LPS administration, and stimulation treatments (if applicable). Time points are based in relation to the acute LPS challenge to the animal.

• 

  Fig 2. Comparison of individual TNF-α temporal profiles from all rats analyzed with LPS administered IP. Top shows unaligned plots with highly variable starting points. Bottom shows the result of aligning utilizing our technique of 5% peak concentration as a starting point (t = 0).

• 

  Fig 3. Representative figure demonstrating the effectiveness of our curve-fitting method on a TNF-α cytokine cascade. Data points were taken every 10 minutes. Curve A utilized only points at 60, 90, 120, 150, 180, and 210 minutes. Curve B utilized only points at 70, 100, 130, 160, 190, and 220 minutes. Curve C utilized only points at 50, 80, 110, 140, 170, 200, and 230 minutes.

• 

  Fig 4. Mean starting times of cytokine elevations. Based on 5% of maximum elevation after IP injection of LPS (5 mg/kg). Error bars, s.e.m.

• 

  Fig 5. Averaged temporal cytokine profiles of SubD Sham (n = 8) subgroup. Average cytokine cascade due to an IP LPS injection (5 mg/kg) at time t = 0. Logarithmic scale is used to show all elevated cytokines.

• 

  Fig 6. Averaged IL-10 cascade responses to IP injection of LPS (5 mg/kg). All samples were curve fitted and aligned at the time they reached 5% of peak concentration, represented as time “zero.” Time axis extends to the last time point at which all samples were still recorded.

• 

  Fig 7. Cumulative IL-10 concentration effects of subgroup responses to IP injection of LPS (5 mg/kg). Values represent effective areas under the curve for each subgroup shown in Fig 6. Error bars, s.e.m. *p < 0.05 compared to SubD Sham group. **p < 0.01 compared to SubD Sham group.

• 

  Fig 8. Averaged IL-6 cascade responses to IP injection of LPS (5 mg/kg). All samples were curve fitted and aligned at the time they reached 5% of peak concentration, represented as time “zero.” Time axis extends to the last time point at which all samples were still recorded.

• 

  Fig 9. Cumulative IL-6 concentration effects of subgroup responses to IP injection of LPS (5 mg/kg). Values represent effective areas under the curve for each subgroup shown in Fig 8. Error bars, s.e.m. # p < 0.1 compared to SubD Sham group.

• 

  Fig 10. Averaged IFN-γ cascade responses to IP injection of LPS (5 mg/kg). All samples were curve fitted and aligned at the time they reached 5% of peak concentration, represented as time “zero.” Time axis extends to the last time point at which all samples were still recorded.

• 

  Fig 11. Cumulative IFN-γ concentration effects of subgroup responses to IP injection of LPS (5 mg/kg). Values represent effective areas under the curve for each subgroup shown in Fig 10. Error bars, s.e.m. # p < 0.1 compared to SubD Sham group. *p < 0.05 compared to SubD Sham group. **p < 0.01 compared to SubD Sham group.