The results from the T Cell Suppression Assay did not match the predicted hypothesis and may not have been as precise as possible due to several sources of error made throughout the project. Overall, the results show that exercise did not increase T cells proliferation in mice and that there may be an increase in MDSC potency or their ability to suppress T cells. As depicted by Graph 3, it is possible to see that the control groups results were same as predicted with a proliferation index of 2.09 and 66% of the T cells proliferating, which is higher than the two other experimental groups. The T cell proliferation for the cells from the exercising and tumor bearing mouse can be seen in Graph 1, which depicts that 43% of the cells in the plate divided. The average proliferation index for these cells was 1.37 as seen in Graph 4, signifying that the T Cells were able to reproduce on average 1.37 times. Comparatively the T Cell production for the sedentary and cancerous mouse was recorded greater with 58% of the cells proliferating and a proliferation index of 1.84 as seen in Graphs 2 and 4.
These results were opposite of the predicted outcome, as it was hypothesized that the mouse that exercised would have higher proliferation index. If the “exercised” cells were to have a higher rate of T cell proliferation their immune systems would be stronger and more effective at combating infection and resisting the spread of the tumor because the results are contrary to our hypothesis the impression of exercise being harmful is given. However, one source of error that may have produced inaccurate results was that the cells from the exercising mouse may have died subsequent to the cell sorting; this would have interfered with the results making them inaccurate. There is no possible way to test this predicted source of error, however, it is most likely that this is the reason for the inaccuracy of the results.
These results were opposite of the predicted outcome, as it was hypothesized that the mouse that exercised would have higher proliferation index. If the “exercised” cells were to have a higher rate of T cell proliferation their immune systems would be stronger and more effective at combating infection and resisting the spread of the tumor because the results are contrary to our hypothesis the impression of exercise being harmful is given. However, one source of error that may have produced inaccurate results was that the cells from the exercising mouse may have died subsequent to the cell sorting; this would have interfered with the results making them inaccurate. There is no possible way to test this predicted source of error, however, it is most likely that this is the reason for the inaccuracy of the results.
CONCLUSION
This research has shown that exercise does have an effect on MDSCs and T cells in tumor-bearing mice. Though the results were opposite to the predicted hypothesis and may have also been influenced by experimental error, there is now some amount of biological and direct evidence that correlates exercise and cancer. With more time there is potential to find more accurate biological evidence, which promotes exercise for individuals with cancer. This research is significant and should be continued as it could improve quality of life for patients with cancer, by decreasing symptoms of cancer and also strengthening the immune system.