TABLE 2.

Statistical analysis of the protective efficacy of rBCG(mbtB)30 versus BCG

ExptStrainLog protection vs sham infectionaLog protection vs BCGb
LungSpleenLung (± SE)Spleen (± SE)
1BCG1.201.37
rBCG(mbtB)301.612.640.41 ± 0.311.27 ± 0.39*
2BCG1.461.93
rBCG(mbtB)302.072.470.61 ± 0.18**0.54 ± 0.22***
3BCG2.512.79
rBCG(mbtB)302.492.73−0.02 ± 0.09−0.06 ± 0.09
Mean ± SEBCG1.72 ± 0.402.03 ± 0.41
rBCG(mbtB)302.06 ± 0.252.61 ± 0.080.33 ± 0.19****0.58 ± 0.38*****
  • a Mean log CFU (sham) − mean log CFU [BCG or rBCG(mbtB)30].

  • b Mean log CFU (BCG) − mean log CFU [rBCG(mbtB)30]. *, P = 0.001 by ANOVA and P = 0.009 by K-W analysis; **, P = 0.001 by ANOVA and P = 0.008 by K-W analysis; ***, P = 0.02 by ANOVA and P = 0.01 by K-W analysis; ****, P = 0.03 by ANOVA and P < 0.04 by K-W analysis, calculated for the three combined experiments normalized to the sham-immunized group (see Materials and Methods); *****, P = 0.0005 by ANOVA and P = 0.001 by K-W analysis, calculated for the three combined experiments normalized to the sham-immunized group (see Materials and Methods).