ADD discussion to mouse 2

tex/thesis.tex

@@ -2393,8 +2393,10 @@ We performed the same experiments as described in
 \cref{fig:mouse_dosing_overview} with the modification that T cells were only
 grown and harvested after \SI{6}{\day}, \SI{10}{\day}, or \SI{14}{\day} of
 expansion (\cref{fig:mouse_timecourse_overview}). T cells were frozen after
-harvest, and all timepoints were thawed at the same time prior to injection. All
-other characteristics of the experiment were the same.
+harvest, and all timepoints were thawed at the same time prior to injection. The
+dose of T cells injected was \num{1.25e6} cells per mouse (the same as the high
+dose in the first experiment). All other characteristics of the experiment were
+the same.
 
 \begin{figure*}[ht!]
   \begingroup
@@ -2486,6 +2488,9 @@ other groups in regard to the final tumor burden.
 
 \section{discussion}
 
+% TABLE make a summary table showing the results from both experiments; this is
+% tough to explain.
+
 When we tested bead and DMS expanded \gls{car} T cells, we also found that the
 \gls{dms} expanded CAR-T cells outperformed bead groups in prolonging survival
 of Nalm-6 tumor challenged (intravenously injected) \gls{nsg} mice. DMS expanded
@@ -2500,7 +2505,21 @@ results suggest that the higher proportion of memory T cells in DMS groups
 efficiently kill tumor cells as recently reported in
 literature\cite{Fraietta2018, Sommermeyer2015}.
 
-% DISCUSSION 2nd mouse model
+% TODO try and find literature explaining what the ideal ratio is
+When testing \gls{car} T cells at earlier timepoints relative to day 14 as used
+in the first \invivo{} experiment, we noted that none of the \gls{car}
+treatments seemed to work as well as they did in the first experiment. However,
+at day 14, we should note that the number of \gls{car} T cells injected in the
+second experiment was lower than the lowest dose in the first for both bead and
+\gls{dms} (\cref{fig:mouse_timecourse_qc_car,tab:mouse_dosing_results}). While
+the \ptmemp{} generally increases with earlier timepoints in the second
+experiment, the first experiment suggests that \ptmemp{} may not be the primary
+driver in this particular model
+(\cref{fig:mouse_timecourse_qc_mem,fig:mouse_dosing_qc_mem}). As with the first
+experiment, the \pthp{} seems to be higher overall in the \gls{dms} group than
+the bead group (\cref{fig:mouse_dosing_qc_cd4,fig:mouse_timecourse_qc_cd4}), and
+this may explain the modest advantage that the \gls{dms} T cells seemed to have
+in the second experiment in slowing the progression of tumor burden.
 
 \chapter{conclusions and future work}\label{conclusions}
 \section{conclusions}