Fig. 3

OH2 treatment polarized macrophages to the M1 phenotype for tumour killing in vivo. A The treatment process and experiment timeline of the CL animal model. B The immune cell infiltration analysis results of the OH2 treatment group and control group by GSVA. C The tumour growth curve of the OH2 combined CL group (red), OH2 (OH2 with control liposomes) group (blue), and control group (black). The red box zoomed (right) in to show the OH2 combined CL group and OH2 group. Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the experimental data. n=10 mice/group, ****, P<0.0001. D The survival curve of the OH2 combined CL group (red), OH2 group (blue), and control group (black). The Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test were used for the survival curve data. ns, no significant differences. E Representative M-IHC results of the OH2 group (left) and OH2 combined CL group (right). F4/80, green, CD86, purple, and CD206, yellow. Scale bar, 100μm. F M-IHC quantification results for M1 subtype. n=3 samples/group. The Student’s t test was used to analyse the significance of the difference between the two groups. ***, p<0.001. G M-IHC quantification results for M2 subtype. n=3 samples/group. The Student’s t test was used to analyse the significance of the difference between the two groups. **, p<0.01. H Representative IHC staining for CD86 (left), CD206 (middle), and F4/80 (right) in the OH2 (top) and OH2 combined CL group (bottom). Original magnification, ×200. n=5 samples/group. (Percentage represented the proportion of M1/M2 macrophages in the total number of cells). I. Quantitative results of CD86 staining in the OH2 combined CL and OH2 group. J Quantitative results of CD206 staining in the OH2 combined CL and OH2 group. K Quantitative results of F4/80 staining in the OH2 combined CL and OH2 group. n=3 samples/group. The Student’s t test was used to analyse the significance of the difference between the two groups. ns, no significant differences, *, p<0.05, **, p<0.01, ***, p<0.001, ****, p<0.0001