Fig. 1From: Innate immune regulation in HIV latency modelsAnalysis of latent cell line response to IFNβ stimulation a,b Immunoblot analysis of HIV proteins in uninfected Jurkat vs latent JLat9.2 cells treated with 16 nM PMA for 24 h (a), or in latent ACH2 cells mock-treated (DMSO) or reactivated with 10 ng/ml TNFα for indicated times (b). c,d qRT-PCR analysis of resting ISG mRNA expression in Jurkat vs JLat9.2 cells (c) or A3.01 vs ACH2 cells. ISG expression data for untreated cells (0 h IFN) is also shown in graphs c & c. (d). e,f qRT-PCR analysis of IFN-induced ISG mRNA expression in Jurkat vs JLat9.2 cells (e) or A3.01 vs ACH2 cells (f) treated with 100 IU/ml IFNβ for indicated times. In c-f, fold change (FC) was calculated relative to untreated, uninfected cells (ΔΔCt method), and each symbol represents mean FC of replicates from a single experiment. Data from three independent experiments are shown. Statistical significance relative to similarly treated control cells (Jurkat or A3.01) was calculated by unpaired Student’s t-test; asterisks denote significance (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001). g,h Immunoblot analysis of Jurkat or JLat9.2 cells stimulated with 100 IU/ml IFNβ for indicated times. Representative images from one of three independent experiments are shown. See quantification data in Additional file 1: Figure S1i, jBack to article page