Bulletin of Experimental Biology and Medicine

, Volume 83, Issue 4, pp 512–515 | Cite as

Immunodepressive action of cyclophosphamide on different strains of mice

  • L. A. Pevnitskii
  • L. Yu. Telegin
  • V. N. Bol'shev
Microbiology and Immunology
Received:

Abstract

The immunodepressive effect of cyclophosphamide (CP) was studied on mice of three strains (BALB/c, CBA, DBA/2) immunized with sheep's red cells (RBC). When the optimal immunizing dose of antigen was used (5×108 RBC) the strongest immunodepression was observed in the DBA/2 mice, but when a large dose of RBC was used (6.2×109) the strongest effect was observed in DBA/2 and CBA mice. The action of CP was shown to depend on the dose of antigen injected: In BALB/c mice the decrease in the number of antibody-forming cells was the same with both doses of RBC, in the DBA/2 mice an increase in the dose of antigen led to weakening of immunodepression, but in CBA mice immunodepression was intensified (provided that sufficiently large doses of CP were used). Determination of the rate of oxidative hydroxylation of CP by the mouse liver microsomes showed it to be comparatively low in DBA/2 and CBA mice and much higher in BALB/c mice. It is suggested that the differences in the immunodepressive action of CP thus revealed could be due to differences in the sensitivity of the target cells and (or) differences in its metabolism in mice of different strains.

Key Words

cyclophosphamide immunodepression genotype 
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.

Literature Cited

  1. 1.
    L. A. Pevnitskii et al., Byull. Éksp. Biol. Med., No. 10, (1969).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    L. A. Pevnitskii et al., Byull. Éksp. Biol. Med., No. 2, 56 (1970).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    R. V. Petrov and R. M. Khaitov, Med. Ref. Zh.,21, No. 5, 25 (1976).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    L. N. Fontalin, et al., Vest. Akad. Med. Nauk SSSR, No. 7, 75 (1970).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    É. M. Khalilov and V. N. Bol'shev, Byull. Éksp. Biol. Med., No. 6, 668 (1976).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. C. Aisenberg, J. Exp. Med.,125, 833 (1967).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    N. Brock and H. J. Hohorst, Cancer (Philadelphia),20, 900 (1967).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    G. Dallner and L. Ernster, J. Histochem. Cytochem.,16, 611 (1968).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    F. M. Dietrich and P. Dukor, Pathol. Microbiol.,30, 909 (1967).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    P. Dukor and F. M. Dietrich, Int. Arch. Allergy,34, 32 (1968).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    D. L. Gasser and W. K. Silvers, Adv. Immunol.,18, 1 (1974).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    T. Hayakawa et al., Biochem. Pharmacol.,18, 129 (1969).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    M. E. Jacobs et al., J. Immunol.,107, 359 (1971).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    N. K. Jerne and A. A. Nordin, Science,140, 405 (1963).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    D. H. Katz, et al., in: Molecular Approaches to Immunology (ed. by E. E. Smith and D. W. Ribbons), Academic Press, New York (1975), pp. 211–242.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    T. Makinodan, et al., Pharmacol. Rev.,22, 189 (1970).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    H. O. McDeuitt, in: Immune Recognition (ed. by A. S. Rosenthal) New York (1975), pp. 621–626.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    G. W. Santos, Fed. Proc.,26, 907 (1967).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    N. E. Sladek, Cancer Res.,32, 1848 (1972).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1977

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. A. Pevnitskii
  • L. Yu. Telegin
  • V. N. Bol'shev

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations