Relationship between age of allogeneic thymus donor and immunological restoration of athymic ('nude") mice

L A Radov, D H Sussdorf, R L McCann, L A Radov, D H Sussdorf, R L McCann

Abstract

In nude mice back-crossed a minimum of five times to BALB/c, solid thymus grafts from C57Bl donors 3 days of age or younger restored both the humoral immune response against sheep erythrocytes and cellular immunity as tested by rejection of CBA skin grafts. Donor thymus placed under the renal capsule at a dose of 0-5 mg/g of recipient resulted in normal humoral immunity, while a minimum dose of 1-5 mg/g was required to reconstitute cellular competence. None of the various amounts of allogeneic thymus tissue transplanted affected the immunological status of nude recipients when grafts were obtained from donors 4 days of age or older. Histological findings correlated with the humoral and cellular responses observed. In nudes grafted with neonatal tissue, the thymus implant proliferated and developed normal architecture. The density of lymphocytes in thymus-dependent regions of peripheral lymphoid organs was near normal. On the other hand, most grafts from older (3-week-old) donors were resorbed by 90 days after implantation. In a number of cases, however, Russell bodies and numerous blast and plasma cells were seen in the graft site. Our observations suggest a possible cytotoxic rejection of implants from older allogeneic donors, while the survival and restorative capacity of transplants from 3-day-old or younger donors may have been due to a tolerogenic effect of the graft on the nude recipient.

References

    1. Immunology. 1971 Feb;20(2):247-52
    1. Science. 1971 Jun 18;172(3989):1258-60
    1. Nat New Biol. 1972 Feb 9;235(58):178-80
    1. Aust J Exp Biol Med Sci. 1972 Oct;50(5):637-50
    1. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1973 Jun;143(2):350-3
    1. J Exp Med. 1973 Nov 1;138(5):1044-55
    1. Nature. 1973 Dec 7;246(5432):350-1
    1. Eur J Immunol. 1972 Aug;2(4):383-4
    1. Immunology. 1972 Sep;23(3):361-74
    1. Transplantation. 1973 Feb;15(2):211-4
    1. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1974 Feb;145(2):351-3
    1. Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand. 1969;77(4):761-2
    1. Transplantation. 1971 Apr;11(4):417-8
    1. Nature. 1966 Jun 11;210(5041):1118-20
    1. Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand. 1969;77(4):758-60
    1. J Embryol Exp Morphol. 1970 Nov;24(3):615-23
    1. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1969 Apr;130(4):1142-6
    1. Clin Exp Immunol. 1969 Jun;4(6):637-44
    1. Genet Res. 1966 Dec;8(3):295-309
    1. J Infect Dis. 1954 Sep-Oct;95(2):117-33
    1. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1963 Oct;114:242-4
    1. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1964 Oct;33:673-90
    1. Immunochemistry. 1975 Jul;12(6-7):607-9
    1. Neoplasma. 1972;19(1):19-25
    1. Aust J Exp Biol Med Sci. 1972 Oct;50(5):651-60
    1. J Exp Med. 1973 Aug 1;138(2):488-94
    1. Clin Exp Immunol. 1973 Aug;14(4):597-607
    1. Eur J Immunol. 1972 Oct;2(5):473-4
    1. Eur J Immunol. 1973 Feb;3(2):117-8
    1. J Exp Med. 1968 Jul 1;128(1):69-83
    1. Clin Exp Immunol. 1971 Feb;8(2):305-17
    1. Clin Exp Immunol. 1972 Jan;10(1):151-61
    1. Immunology. 1970 Jun;18(6):931-42
    1. Nature. 1968 Jan 27;217(5126):370-1
    1. J Immunol. 1966 Feb;96(2):189-95
    1. J Immunol. 1967 Apr;98(4):860-7
    1. J Infect Dis. 1959 Nov-Dec;105:238-52
    1. J Exp Med. 1971 Sep 1;134(3 Pt 1):681-92

Source: PubMed

3
Abonner