Skip to main content
Log in

Inhibitory Effect of Isoantibody on in vivo Sensitization and on the in vitroCytotoxic Action of Immune Lymphocytes

  • Letter
  • Published:

From Nature

View current issue Submit your manuscript

Abstract

KALISS was able to show that the enhancement of tumour grafts in allogeneic recipients is mediated by antibody1. Three alternative mechanisms by which antibodies might exert their effect have been postulated by Billingham et al.2: (1) an afferent inhibition in which antibody combined with allogeneic cells prevents antigeneic determinants from reaching immunologically competent cells; (2) a central inhibition in which antibody, by direct action on lymphoid cells, prevents their sensitization; (3) an efferent inhibition in which antibody reacting with target cells protects against the cytotoxic action of immune lymphoid cells which are competing for the same antigenic receptors. Both the afferent and the central mechanisms would affect sensitization of lymphoid cells, thought to be the most important mediators of homograft rejection. Brent and Medawar3 demonstrated that extracts of antigenic tissue injected into recipients treated with antiserum did not provide immunization against a subsequent skin graft. Snell et al.4 showed that lymphoid cells from tumour allograft recipients which had been treated with antiserum were less efficient in inhibiting tumour growth than lymphoid cells from untreated recipients. Passive immunization is also known, however, to inhibit the synthesis of antibodies4–6, and experiments involving transfer of immunologically competent cells cannot critically distinguish between cellular and humoral immunity. We have therefore analysed the effect of passive immunization on “cell bound immunity” using in vitro methods.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kaliss, N., Cancer Res., 18, 992 (1958).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Billingham, R. E., Brent, L., and Medawar, P. B., Transpl. Bull., 3, 84 (1956).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Brent, L., and Medawar, P. B., Proc. Roy. Soc., B, 155, 392 (1962).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  4. Snell, G. D., Winn, H. J., Stimpfling, J. H., and Parker, S. J., J. Exp. Med., 112, 293 (1960).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Müller, G., J. Nat. Cancer Inst., 30, 1153 (1963).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Rowley, D. A., and Fitch, F. W., J. Exp. Med., 120, 987 (1964).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Brunner, K. T., Mauel, J., and Schindler, R., Immunology, 11, 499 (1966).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Müller, G., Transplantation, 2, 405 (1964).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Müller, E., J. Exp. Med., 122, 11 (1965).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Brondz, B. D., Transplantation, 3, 356 (1965).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

BRUNNER, K., MAUEL, J. & SCHINDLER, R. Inhibitory Effect of Isoantibody on in vivo Sensitization and on the in vitroCytotoxic Action of Immune Lymphocytes. Nature 213, 1246–1247 (1967). https://doi.org/10.1038/2131246a0

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/2131246a0

  • Springer Nature Limited

This article is cited by

Navigation