Cell to cell interaction in the immune response. I. Hemolysin-forming cells in neonatally thymectomized mice reconstituted with thymus or thoracic duct lymphocytes

J F Miller, G F Mitchell, J F Miller, G F Mitchell

Abstract

An injection of viable thymus or thoracic duct lymphocytes was absolutely essential to enable a normal or near-normal 19S liemolysin-forming cell response in the spleens of neonatally thymectomized mice challenged with sheep erythrocytes. Syngeneic thymus lymphocytes were as effective as thoracic duct lymphocytes in this system and allogeneic or semiallogeneic cells could also reconstitute their hosts. No significant elevation of the response was achieved by giving either bone marrow cells, irradiated thymus or thoracic duct cells, thymus extracts or yeast. Spleen cells from reconstituted mice were exposed to anti-H2 sera directed against either the donor of the thymus or thoracic duct cells, or against the neonatally thymectomized host. Only isoantisera directed against the host could significantly reduce the number of hemolysin-forming cells present in the spleen cell suspensions. It is concluded that these antibody-forming cells are derived, not from the inoculated thymus or thoracic duct lymphocytes, but from the host. Thoracic duct cells from donors specifically immunologically tolerant of sheep erythrocytes had a markedly reduced restorative capacity in neonatally thymectomized recipients challenged with sheep erythrocytes. These results have suggested that there are cell types, in thymus or thoracic duct lymph, with capacities to react specifically with antigen and to induce the differentiation, to antibody-forming cells, of hemolysin-forming cell precursors derived from a separate cell line present in the neonatally thymectomized hosts.

References

    1. J Exp Med. 1968 Jan 1;127(1):155-68
    1. Br J Cancer. 1956 Sep;10(3):431-41
    1. J Exp Med. 1966 Jan 1;123(1):191-204
    1. J Immunol. 1965 Oct;95(4):602-13
    1. Nature. 1967 Sep 9;215(5106):1136-9
    1. Science. 1964 Jun 26;144(3626):1544-51
    1. J Exp Med. 1967 Aug 1;126(2):291-304
    1. J Exp Med. 1966 Nov 1;124(5):1017-30
    1. J Exp Med. 1964 Jan 1;119:177-94
    1. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1964 Nov;117:526-30
    1. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1965 Jan;118:79-85
    1. Lancet. 1967 Dec 16;2(7529):1299-302
    1. Br J Cancer. 1960 Mar;14:93-8
    1. Physiol Rev. 1967 Jul;47(3):437-520
    1. J Infect Dis. 1956 Jan-Feb;98(1):75-81
    1. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1968 Jan;59(1):296-303
    1. Nature. 1964 May 16;202:668-70
    1. Nature. 1967 Nov 18;216(5116):659-63
    1. J Exp Med. 1968 Oct 1;128(4):821-37
    1. Nature. 1967 Jun 3;214(5092):992-7
    1. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1964 Nov 30;120:171-81
    1. Nature. 1963 Aug 31;199:873-4
    1. Immunology. 1968 Apr;14(4):599-600
    1. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1967 Sep 12;168(1012):229-43
    1. J Reticuloendothel Soc. 1965 Dec;2(5):396-405
    1. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1965 Jul;119:701-7
    1. J Reticuloendothel Soc. 1964 Dec;1:369-92
    1. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1964 Oct;33:673-90
    1. Nature. 1964 Feb 22;201:784-6
    1. Pathol Microbiol (Basel). 1967;30(6):909-17

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbejdspartnere

Medicinske tilstande

Narkotikainterventioner

3
Abonner