Groups, similar results were also 4EGI-1 custom synthesis observed (Table 2?).Where Ti is the HI titer, and n is the number of observations. However, when comparing two groups of HI titers using t-test, the GMT is likely to overestimate the difference, as t-test assumes a normal distribution but HI titers are on nonlinear fold-two scale. A log 2 transformation will put the HI 25033180 titer data back to linear scale for comparison [19,20], which takes expression as follows:n 1X log2 (Ti ) n ilog 2(GMT)Influenza Antibodies Reaction during 2009 H1NFigure 2. The proportion of each type of influenza 
in each month of 2009 in Shenzhen. The 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic reached its peak in September, and dominated all ILIs in October, according to a survey of 5,125 subjects. Meanwhile, the seasonal H1N1 incidences decreased to a very low level in September, but its antibody titers stayed at a high level. The H3N2 peaked in July but rapidly decreased in August and September. This suggests that the seasonal H1N1 influenza antibody might have been present in sH1N1-infected cases, and could have been associated with the 2009 H1N1 antibody. The seasonal H1N1 antibody was therefore persistent during the pandemic peak of the 2009 H1N1 but after the peak of its own antigen. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0053847.gDissimilarity of Immunity Response of A/H1N1 and Other Seasonal Influenzas in the Presence of 2009 H1N1 PandemicIn Table 1, except for seasonal H1N1, the antibodies of all other types of seasonal influenza (A/H3N2, B/Y and B/V) declined very significantly (p-value ,1024) during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic compared to the pre-outbreak level, whereas the antibodies of Table 4. Seropositive Rates in Each Age Group for Four Types of Seasonal Influenza in March.seasonal H1N1 only mildly decreased (p-value = 0.0873, Bonferroni adjusted p-value = 0.348). The dissimilarity of the antibody reaction of seasonal H1N1 and other seasonal influenzas is noteworthy, and we speculate that there might be cross-reactivity between the immunity responses of the two types of H1N1. Further investigation of the underlying mechanism was performed as follows.Table 5. 1081537 Seropositive Rates in Each Age Group for Four Types of Seasonal Influenza in September.Age group 0? 6?5 16?5 26?9 60 gA/H1N1 17.1 3.2 25.3 24.8 1.7 18.1A/H3N2 9.8 6.5 20.4 24.8 15.3 16.8B/Y 4.9 16.1 59.9 48.1 40.7 37.2B/V 13.8 4.8 25.3 25.6 33.9 21.3Age group 0? 6?5 16?5 26?9 60 gA/H1N1 28.4 3.6 12.9 11.2 17.2 15.6A/H3N2 15.4 3.6 8.7 5.9 18.5 10.7B/Y 14.9 5.4 23.7 12.8 17.9 16.1B/V 17.9 8.0 10.8 10.2 18.5 13.2Before the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic (March), the highest seasonal influenza MedChemExpress AZ 876 prevalence age groups were 16?5 and 26?9 years old. *boldface indicates the top two age groups with the highest seropositive rate. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0053847.tDuring the 2009 H1N1 pandemic (September), the highest seasonal influenza prevalence age groups was the age 0? group and the 60 age group. *boldface indicates the top two age groups with the highest seropositive rate. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0053847.tInfluenza Antibodies Reaction during 2009 H1NTable 6. Change of A/H1N1 Antibody Titer Level Between March and 
September by Age Group (mean titer value in log2 scale).Age group/Group 0? March September Difference P-value 3.533 3.6?5 3.306 2.16?5 3.779 3.347 0.432 0.001 0.26?9 3.663 3.349 0.314 0.034 0.60 3.169 3.534 20.365 0.033 0.2 0.341 0.323 0.041 0.016 0.September in males and females except for the seasonal H1.Groups, similar results were also observed (Table 2?).Where Ti is the HI titer, and n is the number of observations. However, when comparing two groups of HI titers using t-test, the GMT is likely to overestimate the difference, as t-test assumes a normal distribution but HI titers are on nonlinear fold-two scale. A log 2 transformation will put the HI 25033180 titer data back to linear scale for comparison [19,20], which takes expression as follows:n 1X log2 (Ti ) n ilog 2(GMT)Influenza Antibodies Reaction during 2009 H1NFigure 2. The proportion of each type of influenza in each month of 2009 in Shenzhen. The 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic reached its peak in September, and dominated all ILIs in October, according to a survey of 5,125 subjects. Meanwhile, the seasonal H1N1 incidences decreased to a very low level in September, but its antibody titers stayed at a high level. The H3N2 peaked in July but rapidly decreased in August and September. This suggests that the seasonal H1N1 influenza antibody might have been present in sH1N1-infected cases, and could have been associated with the 2009 H1N1 antibody. The seasonal H1N1 antibody was therefore persistent during the pandemic peak of the 2009 H1N1 but after the peak of its own antigen. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0053847.gDissimilarity of Immunity Response of A/H1N1 and Other Seasonal Influenzas in the Presence of 2009 H1N1 PandemicIn Table 1, except for seasonal H1N1, the antibodies of all other types of seasonal influenza (A/H3N2, B/Y and B/V) declined very significantly (p-value ,1024) during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic compared to the pre-outbreak level, whereas the antibodies of Table 4. Seropositive Rates in Each Age Group for Four Types of Seasonal Influenza in March.seasonal H1N1 only mildly decreased (p-value = 0.0873, Bonferroni adjusted p-value = 0.348). The dissimilarity of the antibody reaction of seasonal H1N1 and other seasonal influenzas is noteworthy, and we speculate that there might be cross-reactivity between the immunity responses of the two types of H1N1. Further investigation of the underlying mechanism was performed as follows.Table 5. 1081537 Seropositive Rates in Each Age Group for Four Types of Seasonal Influenza in September.Age group 0? 6?5 16?5 26?9 60 gA/H1N1 17.1 3.2 25.3 24.8 1.7 18.1A/H3N2 9.8 6.5 20.4 24.8 15.3 16.8B/Y 4.9 16.1 59.9 48.1 40.7 37.2B/V 13.8 4.8 25.3 25.6 33.9 21.3Age group 0? 6?5 16?5 26?9 60 gA/H1N1 28.4 3.6 12.9 11.2 17.2 15.6A/H3N2 15.4 3.6 8.7 5.9 18.5 10.7B/Y 14.9 5.4 23.7 12.8 17.9 16.1B/V 17.9 8.0 10.8 10.2 18.5 13.2Before the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic (March), the highest seasonal influenza prevalence age groups were 16?5 and 26?9 years old. *boldface indicates the top two age groups with the highest seropositive rate. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0053847.tDuring the 2009 H1N1 pandemic (September), the highest seasonal influenza prevalence age groups was the age 0? group and the 60 age group. *boldface indicates the top two age groups with the highest seropositive rate. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0053847.tInfluenza Antibodies Reaction during 2009 H1NTable 6. Change of A/H1N1 Antibody Titer Level Between March and September by Age Group (mean titer value in log2 scale).Age group/Group 0? March September Difference P-value 3.533 3.6?5 3.306 2.16?5 3.779 3.347 0.432 0.001 0.26?9 3.663 3.349 0.314 0.034 0.60 3.169 3.534 20.365 0.033 0.2 0.341 0.323 0.041 0.016 0.September in males and females except for the seasonal H1.
