Table 1.

Susceptibility is equivalent among host genotypes

EffectMean ± SETest
Infectious virus particlesANOVA: F2,33 = 0.07, P = 0.93
 BALB/cdd (n = 12)115.33 FFU/spleen ± 52.76
 BALB/ckk (n = 12)149 FFU/spleen ± 105.42
 BALB/cbb (n = 12)152.8 FFU/spleen ± 61.24
Proviral loadANOVA: F2,30 = 0.94, P = 0.40
 BALB/cdd (n = 11)0.01 F-MuLV/GAPDH copy no. ± 0.01
 BALB/ckk (n = 10)0.01 F-MuLV/GAPDH copy no. ± 0.01
 BALB/cbb (n = 12)0.004 F-MuLV/GAPDH copy no. ± 0.009
SplenomegalyANOVA: F2,33 = 0.05, P = 0.95
 BALB/cdd (n = 12)0.17 g ± 0.02
 BALB/ckk (n = 12)0.16 g ± 0.02
 BALB/cbb (n = 12)0.18 g ± 0.02
  • Comparisons of unpassaged virus fitness and virulence measures between groups of infected animals from each of the three host genotypes. There are no significant differences in measures of pathogen fitness or virulence between these host MHC genotypes. Based on these results, we conclude that there are no underlying susceptibility differences between these MHC genotypes to infection with our unpassaged virus stock.