The antigenicity of regenerating tail tissue in the newt Diemictylus viridescens

  • C. Edward Quinn
Article
Received:

Abstract

Young adult male rabbits were inoculated with antigens prepared from regenerating (blastema stage) and nonregenerating tail tissues of the newtDiemictylus viridescens. Blood was collected from these rabbits after six weeks of semiweekly injection, two weeks of respite, and two more weeks of injections. A Freund adjuvant was added to the antigen preparations at the time of injection in order to elicit the anamnestic effect.

Ouchterlony agar diffusions of the newt antigen preparations vs. the rabbit antisera were carried out. The resulting patterns of precipitation bands were compared and photographed.

The strongest precipitation reactions of a given series were those between the antigen preparations made from nonregenerating tissue and their homologous antisera. The weakest reactions occurred between regenerating tissue antigens and regenerating tissue antisera. The strength of the antigen-antibody reactions was judged by the number of bands appearing in the diffusion plate and by the distinctness of these bands. Reactions of intermediate strength occurred between regenerating antigens and nonregenerating antisera, between nonregenerating antigens and regenerating antisera, and between antigens and antisera of different series.

The loss of antigenicity during the blastemal period was considered to be related to the destruction of tissue in the wound areas at this time, and to indicate a quantitative rather than a qualitative loss of protein in regenerating tissue.

Keywords

Rabbit Antiserum Wound Area Weak Reaction Young Adult Male Tissue Antigen 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. Billingham, R. E., L. Brent andP. B. Medawar: Acquired tolerance of skin homografts. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci.59, 409–416 (1955).Google Scholar
  2. Braus, H.: Über das biochemische Verhalten von Amphibienlarven. Wilhelm Roux' Arch. Entwickl.-Mech. Org.22, 564–580 (1906).Google Scholar
  3. Briles, W. E., W. H. McGibbon andM. R. Irwin: Studies of the time of development of cellular antigens in the chicken. Genetics33, 97 (1948).Google Scholar
  4. Burke, V. N., P. Sullivan, H. Peterson andRuth Weed: Ontogenetic change in antigenic specificity of the organs of the chick. J. infect. Dis.74, 225–233 (1944).Google Scholar
  5. Chiarodo, A. J.: Observations on the implantation of regenerating tissues in the newt,Triturus viridescens (Rafinesque). Dissertation Fordham University. New York 1959.Google Scholar
  6. Cooper, R. S.: Adult antigens (or specific combining groups) in the egg, embryo, and larva of the frog. J. exp. Zool.101, 143–172 (1946).Google Scholar
  7. —: A study of frog antigens with serumlike reactive groups. J. exp. Zool.107, 397–437 (1948).Google Scholar
  8. —: Antigens of frog embryos and of adult frog serum studied by diffusion of antigens into agar columns containing antisera. J. exp. Zool.114, 403–420 (1950).Google Scholar
  9. DeHaan, R. L.: The serological determination of developing muscle protein in the regenerating limb ofAmbystoma mexicanum. J. exp. Zool.133, 73–85 (1956).Google Scholar
  10. Ebert, J. D.: An analysis of the effects of anti-organ sera on the development in vitro of the early chick blastoderm. J. exp. Zool.115, 351–377 (1950).Google Scholar
  11. Flickinger, R. A., E. Levi andA. E. Smith: Some serological experiments relating to the embryonic development of the lens. Physiol. Zool.28, 79–85 (1955).Google Scholar
  12. Galtsoff, P. A., andE. Galtsoff: Homoplastic implantation of toadfish (Opsanus tau) embryos in the peritoneal cavity of an adult fish. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci.80, 44–53 (1959).Google Scholar
  13. Greene, H. S. N.: Compatibility and non-compatibility. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci.59, 311–325 (1955).Google Scholar
  14. Hardin, G. A., andA. A. Werder: Effects of skin extracts on the viability of homologous skin grafts in mice. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci.59, 381–384 (1955).Google Scholar
  15. Kaliss, N.: Induced alteration of the normal host-graft relationships in homo-transplantation of mouse tumors. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci.59, 385–393 (1955).Google Scholar
  16. Kritchevsky, J. L.: Ein Versuch der Anwendung der Immunitätsreaktionen für das Studium des biogenetischen Grundgesetzes. Zbl. Bakt.72, 81–94 (1914).Google Scholar
  17. Laufer, H.: Immunochemical studies of muscle proteins in mature and regenerating limbs of the adult newtTriturus viridescens. J. Embryol. exp. Morph.7, 431–458 (1959).Google Scholar
  18. Malinin, T. I.: Fate of frog embryos implanted into forelimbs of adults. Science130, 166 (1959).Google Scholar
  19. Nace, G. W.: Serological studies of the blood of the developing chick embryo. J. exp. Zool.122, 423–448 (1953).Google Scholar
  20. Ouchterlony, O.: Diffusion-in-gel methods for immunological analysis. Progr. Allergy5, 1–79 (1958).Google Scholar
  21. Pizzarello, D. J., andA. Wolsky: Sexual dimorphism in the histocompatibility reaction of Amphibia to skin homografts and a tentative explanation of their mechanism. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci.87, 45–54 (1960).Google Scholar
  22. Schechtman, A. M.: Antigens of early developmental stages of the chick. J. exp. Zool.105, 329–348 (1947).Google Scholar
  23. Spar, I. L.: Antigenic differences among early developmental stages ofRana pipiens. J. exp. Zool.123, 467–498 (1953).Google Scholar
  24. Taliaferro, W. H.: Modification of the immune response by radiation and cortisone. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci.69, 745–764 (1957).Google Scholar
  25. Telfer, W. H., andC. M. Williams: Immunological studies of insect metamorphosis. I. Qualitative and quantitative description of the blood antigens of the Cecropia silkworm. J. gen. Physiol.36, 389–413 (1953).Google Scholar
  26. Uhlenhuth, P., andL. Haendel: Untersuchungen über die praktische Verwertbarkeit der Anaphylaxie zur Erkennung und Unterscheidung verschiedener Eiweißarten. Z. Immun.-Forsch.4, 761–816 (1910).Google Scholar
  27. Zotikov, E. A., V. M. Budik andA. Puza: Some peculiarities of the survival time of skin homografts. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci.87, 166–174 (1960).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1962

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Edward Quinn
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of BiologyFordham UniversityNew York
  2. 2.Manhattan CollegeBronxUSA

Personalised recommendations