Fig 2: Diagnostic performances of percentages of EMAP II+CD4, EMAP II+CD8+, EMAP II+CD16+, EMAP II+CD20+, and EMAP II+CD22+ for identifying NHL patients with recurrence. (a) ROC curves were gained by curves at different cut-offs for NHL patients. (b) AUC (area under the curve) with cut-offs, sensitivity, and specificity for the markers. Significance (P < 0.05) is identified with ∗. High statistical significance (P < 0.001) is identified with ∗∗.

Fig 3: Characterization of Lin- lymphoid cells among human PBMCs A CD127+ and CD127- cells from Lin-CD56- population after gating on lymphoid, singlet, live, CD45+ cells of PBMCs. Lineage (Lin) markers include antibodies against: CD3, CD4, TCRaß, TCR?d, CD19, CD20, CD22, CD34, FceRIa, CD11c, CD303, CD123, CD1a, and CD14.B Heatmap of differentially expressed genes by RNA-Seq, sorted Lin-CD56-CD16-CD127+ versus Lin-CD56-CD16-CD127- cells, from PBMCs of five donors (log2 fold change > 1, Padj < 0.01 determined by DESeq2, the postsort profiles are shown in Appendix Fig S1).C Normalized counts of Lin-CD56-CD127+ (red) and Lin-CD56-CD127- (blue) cell-related genes from (B) by DESeq2 (n = 5).D, E Reactome analysis based on enriched transcripts of Lin-CD56-CD127+ cells (D) or Lin-CD56-CD127- cells (E).F Gating of Lin-CD56hi NK, Lin-CD56dim NK, Lin-CD56- NK cells, and Lin-CD56-CD16-CD127+ILCs.G The indicated populations in (F) were detected with isotype controls or antibodies against TBX21, CRTH2, and ROR?T. Data information: All data were generated using blood from healthy HIV-1-negative donors.

Fig 4: Specific uptake of Cy5-labeled supramolecular prodrug of fludarabine (Cy5@F@TPSA) by B lymphoma cells in vitro. A, B Flow cytometry (A) and statistical analysis (B) of the endocytosis of Cy5@F@TPSA in Raji cells or RAW264.7 cells. C Comparison of endocytosis of two Cy5 labeled nanodrug (Cy5@F@TPSA and Cy5@F@PLGA) in CD22− RAW264.7 cells. D, E Flow cytometry (D) and intracellular Cy5 relative fluorescence intensity (RFI) of CD22+ Raji cells (E). Cy5@F@PLGA was used as a positive control and αCD22 was a neutralizing antibody to CD22. F, G Flow cytometry (F) and statistics (G) of Cy5@F@TPSA at different concentrations (0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 8 μg/mL) after phagocytosis by Raji cells. For E, n = 6, ∗∗∗p < 0.001

Fig 5: In vitro anti-tumor effects of Free FA, F2A, and F@TPSA in different cell lines. A Cytotoxicity of three FA formulations (Free FA, F2A, and F@TPSA) against CD22-positive B lymphoma cell lines (Raji cells, Ramos cells) or CD22-negative other lymphocyte lines (RAW264.7 cells, THP-1 cells) was measured by MTT assay. B The half inhibitory concentrations (IC50) of the three FA formulations on the above cells were compared. C, D Representative flow cytometry plots (C) and data statistics (D) of Raji cells treated for 1 h with three different FA formulations (all calculated as 1 μM FA). All data are presented the mean ± SD (n = 6). ***p < 0.001