Agents and Actions

, Volume 12, Issue 4, pp 499–502 | Cite as

The effect of protease inhibitors on the immune response in mice

  • Pierre Descombes
  • Jean-Pierre Olivier
  • Thomas L. Vischer
Immunosuppression and Inflammation
  • 13 Downloads

Abstract

The effect of protease inhibitors on the immune response in mice was investigated. Soybean inhibitor, aprotinin, α-antitrypsin and ovomucoid (1 mg) diminished significantly the direct plaque forming cell response per spleen 3 days after immunization with 108 sheep erythrocytes (SRBC), when given at the same time as the antigen. With α-antitrypsin, the effect was not significant 4 days after immunization. With soybean inhibitor, no significant suppressive effect was seen, when the inhibitor was given either 24 hours before or after the antigen. Both aprotinin and ovomucoid diminished a secondary response to SRBC, limited to the indirect plaque forming cells. Soybean inhibitor had an equivocal effect on the secondary response. A suppressive effect of soybean inhibitor, but not ovomucoid was seen using KLH-FITC or LPS-FITC as antigens. Neither soybean inhibitor nor aprotinin, had an effect on the induction of delayed-type skin reactivity to, oxazolone or FITC.

Keywords

Immune Response Protease Inhibitor Cell Response FITC Suppressive Effect 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    F.L. Adler,Competition of antigens, Prog., Allergy8, 41 (1964).Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    P.K. Arora, H.C. Miller andL.D. Aronson,α-antitrypsin is an effector of immunological stasis, Nature274, 589 (1978).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    M. Bruley-Rosset, I. Florentin, N. Kiger, J. Schultz andG. Mathe,Restoration of impaired immune functions of aged animals by chronic Bestatin treatment, Immunology38, 75 (1979).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    J.P. Dessaint, S.P. Katz andB.H. Waksman,Catheptic carboxypeptidase B as major component in “T cell-activating factor” of macrophages, J. Immunopharm.1, 399 (1979).Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    D.W. Dresser andH.H. Wortis,Localized haemolysis in gel. InHandbook of Experimental Immunology, p. 1054. (Ed.D.M. Weir). Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford 1967.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    L.B. Epstein, M.J. Cline andT.C. Merigan,The interaction of human macrophages and lymphocytes in the phytohemagglutinin-stimulated production of interferon, J. Clin. Invest.50, 744 (1971).Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    R.H. Gisler, T.L. Vischer andP. Dukor,Trypsin increases in vitro antibody synthesis and substitutes for helper T-cells, J. Immunol.116, 1354 (1976).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    D.A. Hart andJ.S. Streilein,Effect of protease inhibitors on mitogen stimulation of hamster lymphoid cells, Exp. Cell Res.102, 253 (1976).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    D.A. Hart andJ.S. Streilein,Differential effect of trypsin and trypsin inhibitors on lipopolysaccharide stimulation of hamster lymphoid cells, Exp. Cell Res.107, 434 (1977).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    R. Hirschhorn, J. Grossmann, W. Troll andG. Weissmann,The effect of epsilon amino caproic acid on other inhibitors of proteolysis upon the response of human peripheral blood lymphocytes to phytohemagglutinin, J. Clin. Invest.50, 1206 (1971).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    E.J. Holborow andG.D. Johnson,Immunofluorescence. InHandbook of Experimental Immunology, p. 570. (Ed.D.M. Weir). Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford 1967.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    J.G. Kaplan andC. Bona,Proteases as mitogens, Exp. Cell Res.88, 388 (1974).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    R.E. Kast,A theory of lymphocyte, blast transformation (LBT) and malignant change based on proteolytic cleavage of a trigger peptide: the dedentomer, Oncology29, 249 (1974).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    P. Kind andA.G. Johnson,Studies on the adjuvant action of bacterial endodoxins on antibody formation, J. Immunol.82, 415 (1959).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    A.A. Monjan andM.I. Collector,Stress-induced modulation of the immune response, Science196, 307 (1977).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    E. Neter,Endotoxines and the immune response, Curr. Top. Microbiol. Immunol.47, 82 (1969).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    U. Persson,Lipopolysaccharide-induced suppression of the primary immune response to a thymus-dependent antigen, J. Immunol.118, 789 (1977).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    E. Reich, D.B. Rifkin andE. Shaw,Proteases and biological control, Cold Spring Harbor Conferences on Cell Proliferation, vol. 2, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (1975).Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    H. Umezawa, T. Aoyagi, H. Suda, M. Hamada andT. Takenchi,Bestatin, an inhibitor of aminopeptidase B, produced by actinomycetes, J. Antibiotics29, 97 (1976).Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    T.L. Vischer,Stimulation of mouse B lymphocytes by trypsin, J. Immunol.113, 58 (1974).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    T.L. Vischer,Protease inhibitors reduce mitogen induced lymphocyte stimulation, Immunology36, 811 (1979).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    E.S. Vitetta andJ.W. Uhr,IgD and B cell differentiation, Immunol. Rev.37, 50 (1977).PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Birkhäuser Verlag 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pierre Descombes
    • 1
  • Jean-Pierre Olivier
    • 1
  • Thomas L. Vischer
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Rheumatology, University Department of MedicineHôpital Beau-SéjourGeneva 4Switzerland

Personalised recommendations