Advertisement

Characteristics of Cell-Mediated Immunity and Memory in Annelids

  • Edwin L. Cooper
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 64)

Abstract

To search for the phylogenesis of foreign tissue graft rejection we have utilized the common garden earthworm extensively. Whereas earthworms never destroy self-tissue or autografts, they are fully capable of rejecting foreign or not-self tissue allografts (1–5) or xenografts (6). At 15°C, single first-set xenografts exchanged between Lumbricus terrestris and Eisenia foetidaare destroyed at approximately 25–35 days. After a first-set graft is destroyed at 15°C, immunologic memory is demonstrable by regrafting the hosts with a second transplant from the original donor of the first-graft. Both positive and negative memory are demonstrable. Positive memory occurs when second-set transplants are rejected significantly faster than first-sets. By contrast, a lesser percentage of worms have grafts that show prolonged survival indicating negative memory. However, if repeat second-sets are performed at 15°C, five days after transplanting a first-set, during the induction phase of the immune response, there is no dissociation into positive and negative memory. Instead, both first- and second-set grafts are destroyed faster than a single graft (7). It appears therefore that at the evolutionary level of annelid worms, foreign transplant rejection is specific and the mechanism includes a memory component. Memory is one characteristic of adaptive immunity as defined for vertebrates (8).

Keywords

Graft Rejection Inductive Phase Immunologic Memory Memory Response Positive Memory 
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.
    Valembois, P., C. R. Acad. Sci., Paris, 257: 3489–3490 (1963).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Duprat, P., C. R. Acad. Sci., Paris, 259: 4177–4180 (1964).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cooper, E. L., Am. Zool., 5: 254 (1965).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cooper, E. L., J. Exptl. Zool., 171: 69–73 (1969a).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cooper, E. L. and Rubilotta, L. M., Transplantation, 8: 220–223 (1969).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cooper, E. L., Transplantation, 6: 322–337 (1968).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cooper, E. L., Science, 166: 1414–1415 (1969b).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hildemann, W. H. and Reddy, A. L., Fed. Proc., 32: 2188–2194 (1973).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hostetter, R. K. and Cooper, E. L., Immunol. Comm., 1: 155–183 (1972).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hostetter, R. K. and Cooper, E. L., Cell. Immun., 9: 384–392 (1973).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Winger, L. A. and Cooper, E. L., Am. Zool., 9: 352 (1969).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Burnet, F. M., Nature, 218: 426–430 (1968).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Burnet, F. M., Immunological Surveillance (Pergamon, Oxford, London, New York, Toronto, Sydney, 1970).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cooper, E. L., in Phylogeny of Immunity (Blackwell Oxford, in press, 1974).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1975

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edwin L. Cooper
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Anatomy, School of MedicineUniversity of CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations