Folia Microbiologica

, Volume 4, Issue 3, pp 137–159 | Cite as

Antibody formation by different cell systems after transfer to new-born rabbits: a morphological study

  • M. Holub
Article
Received:

Summary

Intraperitoneal or subcutaneous homotransplantation of normal adult spleen, lymph node, lymph and bone marrow cells to 2–5-day-old rabbits, together with bacterial antigen, results in antibody formation by the donor cells. Elimination of a large portion of the lymphocytes from these lymphatic tissues by treating the donors with 6-mercaptopurine does not essentially alter this antibody response.

Smaller amounts of antibodies are also formed by homotransplanted lung tissue, while antibody production by cells and fragments from the liver, thymus and other organs was demonstrated occasionally. Heterotransplantation of spleen cells and transfer of homogenates were ineffective.

In these experiments, lymphocytes, as well as primitive reticular or primitive mesenchymal cells, appear to enter the inductive phase of antibody formation, while the productive phase is associated with plasma cell differentiation. Histological analysis suggests that lymphocytes may also be an intermediate step between reticular cells and immature plasma cells.

The morphological reaction of the transferred cell systems, however, is not purely a reaction to the bacterial antigen, but is due to a great extent to the graftversus-host reaction, and to non-specific stimulation of the transferred cells. The morphology of the reaction of the transferred cells and of the recipient’s organs is described in detail, and the possible influence of transferred lymphoid cells on maturation of the recipient’s lymphoid tissues and their antibodyforming capacity is discussed.

The reaction of the host against the transferred cells, leading to their morphological degradation both at the site of the injection and in the lymphatic organs up to the 20th day after transfer may be caused not only by the usual form of cellular defence, but also simply by encapsulation.

Keywords

Plasma Cell Granulation Tissue Spleen Cell Lymphoid Cell Antibody Production 
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.

OBPAЗOBAHИE AHTИTEЛ PAЗЛЧHЬIMИ ГPYППAMИ КЛETOК: MOPФOЛOГИ-ЧECКOE ИCCЛEДOBAHИE

Abstract

или подкожно нормально го взрослого селезен ки, лимфатический уз ел, лимфы и костного м озга клетки для 2-5-день-старые кролики, вмес те с бактериальные а нтигены, приводит к а нтитела Формирован ие доноров клеток. Ли квидация в значител ьной части из лимфоци тов эти лимфатическ ой ткани, рассматрив ая донорами, с 6-меркап топурин не существе нно изменить это ант итела ответ.

Небольшие количест ва антител также фор мируется путем легочн ой ткани в то время как антите ла производство кле ток и фрагменты из пе чени, вилочковой жел езы и других органов было продемонстрир овано изредка. из клеток селезенки и передача были неэф фектив ными.

В этих эксперимента х, лимфоциты, как равн о как примитивный ре тикуляр или примити вных m кл етки, по-види мому вст упит Индукт ивный эт ап формиров ания ант ител, в то вре мя как п роизводител ьной фа зы связано с плазмой дифференцировки кле ток. Гистологический Анализ свидетельств ует о том что лимфоци ты может быть также п ромежуточным шагом ретикуляр между кле тками и незрелых пла зме клетки.

Морфологические ре акции переданных кле ток систем, однако, не чисто реакции на бак териальные антигены, но из-за большой степ ени graftversus-хост реакция, и не являющимся конкр етным стимулирован ие переданы клеток. О пределенный артикл ьконкретным морфол огия реакция клетки и передаются из полу чателя органы описа на в деталях, и возмож ное влияние передав аемой лимфоидной клеток на созревани е получателя лимфои дной ткани и их потен ци ала обсуждается.

Реакция принимающих против переданных к леток, что приводит к их морфологические деградации как на са йте раствор для инъе кций и в лимфатическ их органах деятельн ость на 20 день после п ередачи может быть вызвано не только по обычной форме сотов ые обороны, но и прост о инкапсуляции.

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.

References

  1. Andreasen, E.:Giba foundation study group conference. London 1957. Nature 180: 1016, 1957.Google Scholar
  2. Aschkenasy, A., Bussard, A., Corvazier, P., Grabar, P.:Étude sur le role de la cortico-surrenale dans la leucopoiese et dans l’imunité. Modifications cytologiques du sang, de la rate et du thymus, apres injection d’extrait corticosurrenal. Rév. d’Hématol. 5: 107, 1950.Google Scholar
  3. Askonas, B. A., Humphrey, J. H.:Formation of specific antibodies and gamma-globulin in vitro. A study of the synthetic ability of various tissues from rabbits immunized by different methods. Biochem. J. 68: 252, 1958.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. van Bekkum, D. W., Vos, O.:Immunological aspects of homo-and heterologous bone marrow transplantation in irradiated animals. J. Cell. mPhysiol. 50, Suppl. 1: 139, 1957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Billingham, R. E.:The reaction of injected homologous lymphoid tissue cells against the host. Transpl. Bull. 4: 177, 1957.Google Scholar
  6. Billingham, R. E., Brent, L., Medawar, P. B.:Acquired tolerance of skin homografts. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 59: 409, 1955.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Billingham, R. Brent, L., Medawar, P. B.:Extraction of antigens causing transplantation immunity. Transpl. Bull. 5: 377, 1958.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Congdon, C. C.:Experimental treatment of total-body irradiation injury: a brief review. Blood 12: 746, 1957.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Davidson, J. D., Freeman, B. B.:The effect of antitumor drugs upon P 32 incorporation into nucleic acids of mouse tumors. Cancer. Res. 15: 31, 1955.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Dempster, W. J.:A consideration of the cause of functional arrest in homotransplanted kidneys. Brit. J. Urol. 27: 66, 1955.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Dixon, F. J., Roberts, J. C, Weigle, W. O.:Quantitative aspects of the antibody response of transferred lymph node and peritoneal exudate cells. Fed. Proc. 15: 747, 1956; 16: 650, 1957.Google Scholar
  12. Dixon, F. J., Weigle, W. O.:Antibody production by cells of the neonatal rabbit. Fed. Proc. 16: 411, 1957a.Google Scholar
  13. Dixon, F. J., Weigle, W. O.:The nature of the immunologie inadequacy of neonatal rabbit. J. Exp. Med. 105: 75, 1957b.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dixon, F. J., Weigle, W. O., Roberts, J. C.:Comparison of antibody response associated with the transfer of rabbit lymph node, peritoneal exudate and thymus cells. J. Immunol. 78: 56, 1957.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Elion, G. B., Bieber, S., Hitchings, G. H.:Fate of 6-mercaptopurine in mice. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 60: 297, 1954.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Fichtelius, K. E.:Further studies on the difference between lymphocytes of lymph nodes and thymus. Acta Haemat. 19: 187, 1958.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Hamilton, L. D., Otteson, J.:Ciba foundation study group conference. London 1957. Nature 180: 1016, 1957.Google Scholar
  18. Harris, S., Harris, T. N., Farber, M. B.:Studies on the transfer of lymph node cells. I. Appearance of antibody in recipients of cells from donor rabbits injected with antigen. II. Effects of experimental manipulation of the donor system. J. Immunol. 72: 148, 161, 1954a.Google Scholar
  19. Harris, N., Harris, S., Farber, M. B.:Transfer to X-irradiated rabbits of lymph node cellsincubated in vitro with Shigella paradysenteriae. Proc. Sce. Exp. Biol. Med. 86: 549, 1954b.Google Scholar
  20. Harris, S., Harris, T. N.:Studies on the transfer of lymph node cells. V. Transfer of cells incubated in vitro suspension of Shigella paradysenteriae. J. Immunol. 74: 318, 1955.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Harris, T. N., Harris, S.:Studies on the homotransfer of suspensions of lymph node cells. Transpl. Bull. 3: 75, 1956.Google Scholar
  22. Harris, T. N., Harris, S.:Studies on the homotransfer of suspensions of the lymph node cells. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 64: 1040, 1957.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Harris, T. N., Harris, S., Farber, M. B.:Transfer of lymph node cells to recipient rabbits preinjected with blood leucocytes of donors. Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med. 95: 26, 1957.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Harris, T. N., Harris, S., Ogburn, C. A., Farber, M. B.:Studies on the transfer of lymph node cells. IX. The use of dialysates of Shigella-trypsin filtrates for in vitro incubation with lymph node cells. J. Immunol. 80: 308, 1958.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Holub, M.:Antibody production by lymphocytes after in vitro contact with bacterial antigen and transfer to new-born rabbits. Nature 181: 122, 1958a.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Holub, M.:The fate and morphological differentiation of lymphoid cells after transfer to young rabbits. Transpl. Bull. 5: 73, 1958b.Google Scholar
  27. Holub, M.:Experirnentálni morfologie tvorby protilátek. Thesis. Czechoslovak Acad. Sci., Praha 1958c.Google Scholar
  28. Hrubešová, M., Askonas, A., Humphrey, J. H.:Antibody and gamma-globulin formation in infant rabbits after transfer of nucleoprotein. IV. Int. Congr. Biochemistry, Wien 1958.Google Scholar
  29. Jacobson, O. O., Robson, M. J.:Factors affecting X-ray inhibition of antibody formation. J. Lab. Clin. Med. 39: 169, 1952.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Kurnick, N. B.:Pyronin Y in the methyl-green-pyronin histological stain. Stain Technology 30: 213, 1955.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. La Via, M. F., Robson, M., Wissler, R. W.:Modification of the antibody response in X-irradiated rats by injection of spleen homogenates. Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med. 96: 667, 1957.Google Scholar
  32. Lengerová, A.:Současný stav otázky o mechanismu terapeutického působení transplantatovaných krvetvorných tkání po letálních dávkách ionisujícího záření. Čs. biologie 7: 230, 1958.Google Scholar
  33. Loutit, J. F., Mitchison, N. A.:Giba foundation study group conference, London 1957. Nature 180: 1016, 1957.Google Scholar
  34. Makinodan, T.:Immunology of bone marrow transplantation. J. Cell. mPhysiol. 50, Suppl. 1: 327, 1957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Málek, P., Kolc, J.:Metodické přístupy v pathofysiologickém sledování lymfatického systému. Čas. lék. čes. 97: 1069, 1958.Google Scholar
  36. Medawar, P. B.:The homograft reaction. Proc. Royal Soc. 149: 145, 1958.Google Scholar
  37. Metcalf, D., Buffet, R. F.:Lymphocytosis response in mice and its relation to thymus and andrenals. Proc Soc. Exp. Biol. Med. 95: 576, 1957.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Mitchison, N. A.:The colonization of irradiated tissue by transplanted spleen cells. Brit. J. Exp. Path. 37: 329, 1956.Google Scholar
  39. Mitchison, N. A.:Adoptive transfer of immune reactions by cells. J. Cell. Physiol. 50, Suppl. 1: 247, 1957.Google Scholar
  40. Neil, A. L., Dixon, F. J.:Immunohistochemical detection of antibody in cell transfer studies. Fed. Proc. 17(1):527, 1958.Google Scholar
  41. Porter, K. A., Murray, E. E.:Long-term study of x-irradiated rabbits with bone-marrow homotransplantats. J. Nat. Cancer. Inst. 20: 189, 1958.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Roberts, J. C., Dixon, F. J.:The transfer of lymph node cells in the study of the immune response to foreign proteins. J. Exp. Med. 102: 379, 1955.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Roberts, J. C, Dixon, F. J., Weigle, W. O.:Antibody production by lymph node cells and peritoneal exudate cells. A. M. A. Arch. Pathol. 64: 324, 1957.Google Scholar
  44. Scothorne, R. J.:Studies on the response of the regional lymph nods to skin homografts. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 64: 1028, 1957.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Scothorne, R. J., Mc Gregor, I. A.:Cellular changes in lymph nodes nad spleen following homografting in the rabbit. J. anat. 89: 283, 1955.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Schelin, U., Hesslesjö, R., Paulsen, F., Mellgren, J.:Plasma cell production promoted by pituitary somatotropic hormone in the adaptation syndrome. Acta Path. Microbiol. Scand. 35: 503, 1954.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Simonsen, M.:The impact on the developing embryo and newborn animal of adult homologous cells. Acta Path. Mierobiol. Scand. 40: 480, 1957.Google Scholar
  48. Soška, J., Drášil, V.:Ochranný vliv krvetvorné tkáně v nemoci z ozáření. IV. Účinnost některých frakcí slezinného homogenátu. Čs. biologie 7: 23, 1958.Google Scholar
  49. Soška, J., Švejda, J.:Ochranný vliv krvetvorné tkáně v nemoci zozáření. III. Tvorba protilátek po ozáření a injekci slezinných buněk. Čs. biologie 7: 18, 1958.Google Scholar
  50. Stavitsky, A. B.:Participation of the popliteal lymph, node and spleen in the production of diphteria antitoxin in the rabbit. J. Inf. Dis. 94: 306, 1954.Google Scholar
  51. Stavitsky, A. B.:Antibody synthesis by homotransplanted cells and tissues. I. Study of factors which influence the process in the rabbit. 3. Immunol. 79: 187, 1957.Google Scholar
  52. Stavitsky, A. B.:Antibody synthesis by homotransplanted cells and tissues. III. Mechanism of antibody synthesis during the secondary response in the recipient animal. Brit. J. Exp. Path. 39: 46, 1958.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Stavitsky, A. B., Axelrod, A. E., Pruzansky, J.:Antibody synthesis by homotransplanted cells and tissues. II. Study of factor which influence the process in the rat. J. Immunol. 79: 200, 1957.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Stavitsky, A. B., Wolf, B.:Mechanism of antibody globulin synthesis by lymphoid tissue in vitro. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 27: 4, 1958.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Stoner, R. D., Hale, W. M.:Antibody production by thymus and Peyer’s patches intraocular transplants. J. Immunol. 75: 303, 1955.Google Scholar
  56. Šterzl, J.:The demonstration and biological properties of the tissue precursor of serum antibodies. Fol. biol. (Praha) 1: 193, 1955.Google Scholar
  57. Šterzl, J.:The production of antibodies by isolated spleen cells following contact with antigen in vitro. Fol. biol. (Praha) 3: 1, 1957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Šterzl, J.:Stanovení funkčního období buněk vytvářejících protilátky po přenosu králičím mládatům. Čs. mikrobiol. 3: 61, 1958.Google Scholar
  59. Šterzl, J., Holub, M.:The influence of 6-mercaptopurine on antibody formation. Fol. biol. (Praha) 4: 59, 1958.Google Scholar
  60. Šterzl, J., Hrubešová, M., Ryehlíková, M.:Příspévek k otázce způsobu tvorby protilátek. Immunol. Conf. of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences, Liblice 1954.Google Scholar
  61. Šterzl, J., Trnka, Z.:Effect of very large doses of bacterial antigen on antibody production in newborn rabbits. Nature 179: 918, 1957.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Taliaferro, W. H., Jaroslow, B. N., Taliaferro, L. G.:Mechanism of X-ray injury to antibody formation. VII. Congr. Int. Microbiol. Abstracts 305, 1958.Google Scholar
  63. Trentin, J. J.:Induced tolerance and “homologous disease” in X-irradiated mice protected with homologous bone marrow. Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med. 96: 139, 1957a.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Trentin, J. J.:Thymic weight recovery with homologous bone marrow in irradiated mice. Rad. Res. 7(4) ref. 129, 1957b.Google Scholar
  65. Trnka, Z.:Antibody formation by isolated spleen cells transferred to recipients in absence of homotransplantation reaction. Nature 183: 546, 1959.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Trowell, O. A.:Re-utilization of lymphocytes in lymphopoiesis. J. Biophys. Biochem. 3: 317, 1957a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Trowell, O. A.:Ciba foundation study group conference. London 1957. Nature 180: 1016, 1957b.Google Scholar
  68. Wesslén, T.:Studies on the role of lymphocytes in antibody production. Acta Dermato-Venerol. 32: 265, 1952.Google Scholar
  69. Wohlwill, F. J., Jetter, W. W.:The occurrence of plasma cells after ionizing irradiation in dogs. Am. J. Path. 29: 721, 1953.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Wrba, H., Giessler, G.:Zur Aufnahme von Zellbestandteilen durch Tumorzellen. Naturwiss. 45: 192, 1958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Microbiology, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic 1959

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Holub
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Microbiology, Institute of BiologyCzechoslovak Academy of Sciences

Personalised recommendations