Advertisement

Immune Response in Mice: A Comparison of the Secondary Immune Response and the Response Elicited with Immune Complexes

  • Geronimo Terres
  • Albert H. Coons
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 5)

Abstract

An enhancing influence of preexisting antibody on the magnitude of antibody response to an antigenic stimulus was first noted by Terres and Wolins [1]. Despite the general finding by many workers that passively administered antibody inhibits antibody formation (reviewed by Uhr and Möller [2]), the original observation has been repeatedly confirmed by the senior author and his colleagues (e.g., [3, 4]). The difference evidently is in the dosage and in the need for antigen excess or for the presence of antigen on two occasions, as suggested by Leduc et al. [5]. The kinetics and the quantity of antibody synthesized in such an enhanced response were indistinguishable from those of a secondary response (S. L. Morrison and G. Terres, unpublished); mouse anti-BSA appeared within 5 days of the booster or the antigen-antibody injection, and the peak titer was reached on about day 7.

Keywords

Bovine Serum Albumin Immune Complex Ammonium Sulfate Tetanus Toxoid Fluorescent Cell 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    G. Terres and W. Wolins, Proc. Soc. Exptl. Biol. Med., 102:632, 1959.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. W. Uhr and G. Möller, in: F. J. Dixon Jr., and H. G. Kunkel, Eds., Advances in Immunology, Vol. 8, p. 81. New York: Academic Press, 1968.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    G. Terres and R. D. Stoner, Proc. Soc. Exptl. Biol. Med., 109:88, 1962.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    M. G. Hess, G. Terres, and R. D. Stoner, Rad. Res., 25:655, 1965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    E. H. Leduc, A. H. Coons, and J. M. Connolly, J. Exptl. Med., 102:61, 1955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    G. Terres and S. L. Morrison, J. Immunol., 98:584, 1967.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    A. S. McFarlane, Nature, London, 182:53, 1958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    G. Terres and W. Wolins, J. Immunol., 86:361, 1961.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. H. Peters and A. H. Coons, in: C. A. Williams and M. W. Chase, Eds., Methods in Immunology and Immunochemistry, Vol. IV. New York: Academic Press (in press).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    R. S. Farr, J. Infect. Dis., 103:239, 1958.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    G. Terres and W. H. Hughes, J. Immunol., 83:459, 1959.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    G. Sainte-Marie, J. Histochem. and Cytochem., 10:250, 1962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    R. D. Stoner and G. Terres, J. Immunol., 91:761, 1963.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    A. Cruchaud and A. H. Coons, J. Exptl. Med., 120:1061, 1964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press 1969

Authors and Affiliations

  • Geronimo Terres
    • 1
  • Albert H. Coons
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Bacteriology and ImmunologyHarvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations