Advertisement

Bulletin of Experimental Biology and Medicine

, Volume 90, Issue 6, pp 1750–1753 | Cite as

Ultrastructure of lymphoid cells of experimental tuberculous granulomas

  • V. V. Erokhin
  • M. P. El'shanskaya
Morphology and Pathomorphology
  • 16 Downloads

Conclusion

Activated lymphocytes were found in the lymphoid population participating in the formation of the tuberculous granuloma, and two groups of cells characterized by differences both in their ultrastructure and in the manner of manifestation of functional activity could be distinguished among them. Whereas the development of the ultrastructure in the group I lymphoid cells development of the ultrastructure is accompanied by intensive synthetic and secretory activity, the predominant feature of the group II cells is their ingestive function, effected by active pinocytosis. Heterogeneity of the subcellular organization of the lymphoid cells in tuberculous infection reflects differences in their functional specialization. The surface of the cell is a good indicator of its functional state and of the intensity of processes taking place in it. Probably lymphoid cells in the young granuloma are T cells, whereas in the mature granuloma lymphocytes with an irregular surface, resembling B cells, become more numerous. Forms of lymphoid cells with intermediate type of ultrastructure also are encountered. Consequently, without taking into account the degree of differentiation, of intercellular interaction, and density of the population of lymphoid cells in a granuloma it is difficult to identify whether they belong to the T or B class. Tests with special immunologic markers are necessary for this purpose.

Key Words

lymphocyte ultrastructure tuberculous granuloma 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. 1.
    M. M. Averbakh, The Immunology and Immunopathology of Tuberculosis [in Russian], Moscow (1976).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    A. K. Ageev, Arkh. Patol., No. 12, 3 (1976).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    P. D. Bondartsev, Zh. Nevropatol. Psikhiat., No. 7, 1061 (1976).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    S. N. Bykovskaya, M. S. Raushenbakh, A. N. Rytenko, et al., Byull. Éksp. Biol. Med., No. 5, 560 (1978).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    V. G. Kvachev, “Ultrastructural and immunocytochemical investigation of lymphocytes under normal conditions and in experimental virus carcinogenesis,” Author's Abstract of Candidate's Dissertation, Kiev (1975).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. V. Petrov and A. N. Cheredeev, Usp. Sovrem. Biol.,77, No. 1, 90 (1974).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    V. I. Puzik, Problems in the Immunomorphology of Tuberculosis [in Russian], Moscow (1966).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yu. A. Umanskii, D. F. Gluzman, V. M. Yudin et al., Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR,221, 1193 (1975).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    P. Biberfeld, J. Ultrastruct. Res.,37, 41 (1971).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    H. Firket and G. Degiovanni, Arch. Path. Anat. Abt. Zellpath.,17, 229 (1975).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    D. Lagury, J. Bernard, N. Thierness, et al., Eur. J. Immunol.,5, 818 (1975).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    N. R. Ling, Stimulation of Lymphocytes [in Russian], Moscow (1971).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    A. Polliack, N. Hammerling, et al., Eur. J. Immunol.,5, 32 (1975).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    M. D. Rossman, J. H. Dauber, and R. P. Daniele, Am. Rev. Resp. Dis.,117, 713 (1978).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    R. M. Steinman, G. Kaplan, M. D. Witmer, et al., J. Exp. Med.,149, 1 (1979).PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • V. V. Erokhin
  • M. P. El'shanskaya

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations