Advertisement

Journal of Clinical Immunology

, Volume 3, Issue 2, pp 105–110 | Cite as

Ultraviolet light-induced suppression of antigen presentation

  • C. W. Spellman
  • T. B. Tomasi
Special Article

Abstract

Ultraviolet (UV) light irradiation of animals results in the development of specific T suppressor cells that inhibit antitumor immune responses. It is thought that suppression may arise as a consequence of altered antigen presentation by UV-irradiated epidermal cells. This hypothesis is based on evidence demonstrating that specific lymphoid tissues from UV-irradiated hosts exhibit impaired antigen-presenting function and that animals cannot be contact sensitized when antigens are applied to a UV-irradiated skin site. Langerhans cells of the skin are likely candidates as targets of UV-induced defects in antigen presentation as they bear Fc and C3b receptors, express Ia antigens, are of bone marrow origin, and are capable of presenting antigenin vitro. We speculate on the possible clinical usefulness of UV-induced tolerance to specific antigens such as those encountered in monoclonal antibody therapy and tissue transplantation.

Key words

Ultraviolet (UV) light radiation antigen-presenting cells Langerhans cells syngeneic UV-induced tumors tolerance 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Chesnut R, Grey H: Studies on the capacity of B cells to serve as antigen presenting cells. J Immunol 126:1075–1079, 1981Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Walker E, Warner NL, Chesnut R, Kappler J, Marrack P: Antigen-specific, I region-restricted interactionsin vitro between tumor cell lines and T cell hybridomas. J Immunol 128: 2164–2169, 1982Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chesnut RW, Colon SM, Grey HM: Antigen presentation by normal B cells, B cell tumors, and macrophages: Functional and biochemical comparison. J Immunol 128:1764–1768, 1982Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Steinman RM, Nussenzweig MC: Dendritic cells: Features and functions. Immunol Rev 53:127–147, 1980Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stingl G, Katz SI, Clement L, Green I, Shevach EM: Immunologic functions of Ia-bearing epidermal Langerhans cells. J Immunol 121:2005–2013, 1978Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ashida ER, Johnson AR, Lipsky PE: Human endothelial cell-lymphocyte interaction. J Clin Invest 67:1490–1499, 1981Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Unanue ER: The regulatory role of macrophages in antigenic stimulation. II. Symbiotic relationship between lymphocytes and macrophages. Adv Immunol 31:1–136, 1981Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schwartz RH, Yano A, Paul WE: Interaction between antigen-presenting cells and primed T lymphocytes: An assessment of Ir gene expression in the antigen presenting cell. Immunol Rev 40:153–180, 1978Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Benacerraf B, Germain R: The immune response genes of the major histocompatibility complex. Immunol Rev 38:70–119, 1978Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bach FH, Bach ML, Sondel PM: Differential function of major histocompatibility complex antigens in T lymphocyte activation. Nature 259:273–281, 1976Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zinkernagel RM, Doherty PC: H-2 compatibility requirement for T-cell-mediated lysis of target cells infected with lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus. Different cytotoxic T-cell specificities are associated with structure coded for in H-2K or H-2D. J Exp Med 141:1427–1436, 1975Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fathman CG, Kimoto M: Studies utilizing murine T cell clones: Ir genes, Ia antigens, and MLR stimulating determinants. Immunol Rev 54:57–79, 1981Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shreffler DC, David CS: The H-2 major histocompatibility complex and the I immune response region: Genetic variation, function, and organization. Adv Immunol 20:125–195, 1975Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Meo T, David CS, Rijnbeek AM, Nabholz M, Miggiano VC, Shreffler DC: Inhibition of mouse MLR by anti-Ia sera. Transplant Proc 7:127–129, 1975Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schwartz RH, Fathman CG, Sachs DH: Inhibition of stimulation in murine mixed lymphocyte cultures with an alloantiserum directed against a shared Ia determinant. J Immunol 116:929–935, 1976Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Spellman CW, Warner NL: MLR responses do not correlate with quantitative measurements of Ia expression on tumor stimulator cells. Fed Proc 39:686, 1980Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lafferty KJ, Warren HS, Wollnough JA, Talmage DW: Immunological induction of T lymphocytes: Role of antigen and the lymphocyte costimulator. Blood Cells 4:395–404, 1978Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Daynes RA, Spellman CW, Woodward JG, Stewart DA: Studies into the transplantation biology of ultraviolet light-induced tumors. Transplantation 23:343–348, 1977Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kripke ML: Immunologic mechanisms in UV radiation carcinogenesis. Adv Cancer Res 34:69–106, 1981Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kripke ML, Fisher MS: Immunologic parameters of ultraviolet carcinogenesis. J Natl Cancer Inst 57:211–215, 1976Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Spellman CW, Daynes RA: Modification of immunologic potential by ultraviolet radiation. II. Generation of suppressor cells in short-term UV irradiated mice. Transplantation 24:120–126, 1977Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Daynes RA, Schmitt MK, Roberts LR, Spellman CW: Phenotypic and physical characteristics of the lymphoid cells involved in the immunity to syngeneic UV induced tumors. J Immunol 122:2458–2464, 1979Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Spellman CW, Daynes RA: Ultraviolet light induced murine suppressor lymphocytes dictate specificity of anti-ultraviolet tumor immune responses. Cell Immunol 38:25–34, 1978Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Greene MI, Sy MS, Kripke M, Benacerraf B: Impairment of antigen-presenting cell function by ultraviolet radiation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 76:6591–6595, 1979Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Letvin NL, Greene MI, Benacerraf B, Germain RN: Immunologic effects of whole body ultraviolet irradiation. Selective defect in splenic adherent cell function in vitro. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 77:2881–2885, 1980Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Letvin NL, Fox IJ, Greene MI, Benacerraf B, Germain RN: Immunologic effects of whole body ultraviolet (UV) irradiation. II. Defect in splenic adherent cell antigen presentation for stimulation of T cell proliferation. J Immunol 125:1402–1404, 1980Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Spellman CW, Woodward JG, Daynes RA: Modification of immunological potential by ultraviolet radiation. I. Immune status of short-term UV irradiated mice. Transplantation 24:112–119, 1977Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gurish MF, Lynch DH, Daynes RA: Changes in antigen-presenting cell function in the spleen and lymph nodes of ultraviolet-irradiated mice. Transplantation 33:280–284, 1982Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Toews GB, Bergstresser PA, Streilein JW: Epidermal Langerhans cell density determines whether contact hypersensitivity or unresponsiveness follows skin painting with DNFB. J Immunol 124:445–453, 1980Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Silberberg-Sinakin I, Thorbecke GJ, Baer RL, Rosenthal SA, Berezowsky V: Antigen-bearing Langerhans cells in skin, dermal lymphatics, and in lymph nodes. Cell Immunol 25:137–151, 1976Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Stingl G, Wolff-Schreiner EC, Pichler WJ, Gschnait F, Knapp W, Wolff K: Epidermal Langerhans cells bear Fc and C3 receptors. Nature 268:245–246, 1977Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Klareskog L, Tjernlund UM, Forsum U, Peterson PA: Epidermal Langerhans cells express Ia antigens. Nature 268:248–250, 1977Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Stingl G, Katz SI, Shevach EM, Wolff-Schreiner E, Green I: Detection of Ia antigens on Langerhans cells in guinea pig skin. J Immunol 120:570–578, 1978Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Frelinger JG, Hood L, Hill S, Frelinger JF: Mouse epidermal Ia molecules have a bone marrow origin. Nature 282:321–323, 1979Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Nordlund JJ, Ackles AE: A specific method for quantifying cells bearing Ia antigen in murine epidermis. J Invest Dermatol 74:248, 1980Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lynch DH, Gurish MF, Daynes RA: Relationship between epidermal Langerhans cell density ATPase activity and the induction of contact hypersensitivity. J Immunol 126:1892–1896, 1981Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Luger TA, Stadler BM, Katz SI, Oppenheim JJ: Epidermal cell (keratinocyte)-derived thymocyte-activating factor (ETAF). J Immunol 127:1493–1498, 1981Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sauder DN, Noonan FP, DeFabo EC, Katz SI: Inhibition of alloantigen presentation by epidermal cells: Reversal by epidermal cell derived thymocyte activating factor (ETAF).In The Effect of Ultraviolet Light on the Immune System, Johnson, Johnson, Inc. In press, 1982Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Elmets CA: In vivo low dose ultraviolet B (UV-B) irradiation induces T suppressor cells to contact sensitizing agents.In The Effect of Ultraviolet Light on the Immune System, Johnson, Johnson, Inc. In press, 1982Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Pierres M, Germain RN: Antigen-specific T cell-mediated suppression. IV. Role of macrophages in generation of L-glutamic acid60-alanine30-L-tyrosine10 (GAT)-specific suppressor T cells in responder mouse strains. J Immunol 121:1306–1314, 1978Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Spellman CW: Cross-reactive antigenicity between UV-irradiated skin and UV-induced tumors.In The Effects of Ultraviolet Light on the Immune System, Johnson, Johnson, Inc. In press, 1982Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. W. Spellman
    • 1
  • T. B. Tomasi
    • 1
  1. 1.Departments of Cell Biology and Pathology, Cancer Research and Treatment CenterUniversity of New Mexico, School of MedicineAlbuquerque

Personalised recommendations