%0 Figure %A Gholami, Elham %A Oliveira, Fabiano %A Taheri, Tahereh %A Seyed, Negar %A Gharibzadeh, Safoora %A Gholami, Nasim %A Mizbani, Amir %A Zali, Fatemeh %A Habibzadeh, Sima %A Bakhadj, Daniel Omid %A Meneses, Claudio %A Kamyab-Hesari, Kambiz %A Sadeghipour, Alireza %A Taslimi, Yasaman %A khadir, Fatemeh %A Kamhawi, Shaden %A Mazlomi, Mohammad Ali %A Valenzuela, Jesus G. %A Rafati, Sima %D 2019 %T Histopathological analysis of the skin response to Ph. sergenti salivary proteins. %U https://plos.figshare.com/articles/figure/Histopathological_analysis_of_the_skin_response_to_i_Ph_i_i_sergenti_i_salivary_proteins_/7579658 %R 10.1371/journal.pntd.0007067.g003 %2 https://plos.figshare.com/ndownloader/files/14166407 %K sergenti SGH %K protein PsSP 9 %K DTH response %K arthropod saliva components %K cutaneous leishmaniasis %K DNA plasmid coding %K PsSP 9 %K tropica infection %K Ph %K SP 15 family %K IL %K vector-borne disease leishmaniasis %K CL %K BALB %K PsSP 9 antibody response %K Leishmania tropica Background %K IFN -γ expression %K saliva-specific antibody response %K co-administered Leishmania antigens %K months post infection %K PpSP 15 family %K sergenti saliva %X

Histological evaluation of representative ears of BALB/c mice immunized with PsSP9, PsSP40, PsSP41, PsSP42, PsSP52, Ph. sergenti SGH, empty plasmid, or PBS. Two weeks after the last immunization, mice were challenged in the opposite ear with Ph. sergenti salivary gland homogenate. Ear sections stained with hematoxylin and eosin (H&E staining). Sections were analyzed by optical microscopy under 100× and 400× (A) or 100× (B) magnification and the number of leukocytes enumerated microscopically. Bars represent the mean ±SD. Data are representative of two independent experiments (3–5 mice per group). The p value is indicated for each immunized group compared with the control plasmid group (VR1020).

%I PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases