Advertisement

Production and Characterization of Anti-Morphine Anti-Idiotypic Antibodies

  • Gary E. Isom
Part of the Methodological Surveys in Biochemistry and Analysis book series (MSBA, volume 15B)

Abstract

Anti-morphine antibodies (AM-Ab’s) have now been generated in rabbits by immunization with 3-0-carboxymethylmorphine-bovine serum albumin (BSA). The polyclonal antibodies (PAb’s) mimicked the opioid binding characteristics of opiate receptors since they bound morphine stereospecifically and with high affinity. Anti-idiotypic antibodies (anti-Id Ab’s) which cross-react with the opiate receptor were produced by immunizing guinea pigs and mice with purified AM-Ab. Guinea pig antisera produced opiate-like responses in the isolated ileal longitudinal muscle and vas deferens preparations. With antisera present the binding of [3H]naloxone to mouse-brain homogenate was reduced. Scatchard analysis indicated that its binding was to two different sites, each affected by antisera. Anti Id antisera administered to mice attenuated biological responses to opiates.

Keywords

Opiate Receptor Male Hartley Guinea Naloxone Binding Immunological Image Ileal Longitudinal Muscle 
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.
    . Venter, J.C., Berzofsky, J.A., Linstrom, J., Jacobs, S., Fraser, C.M., Kohn, L.D., Schneider, W.J., Greene, G.L., Strosberg, A.D. & Erlanger, B.P. (1984) Fed. Proc.43, 2532–2539.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    . Strosberg, A.D., Couraud, P.O., Durieu-Trautmann, O. & Delavier-Klutchko, C. (1982) Trends Pharmacol. Sci.3, 282–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    . Tzartox, S.J., Seybold, M.E. & Linstrom, J.M. (1982) Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.79, 188–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    . Fraser, C.M. & Venter, J.C. (1980) Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.77, 7035–7038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    . Strosberg, A.D. (1983) Springer Semin. Immunopathol.6, 67–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    . Venter, C.J. (1983) Surv. Immunol. Res.2, 302–305.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    . Jerne, N.K. (1974) Annis. Inst. Pasteur, Paris125c, 373–389.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    . Wasserman, N.H., Penn, A.S., Freimath, P.I., Treptow, N., Wentzel, S., Cleveland, W.L.& Erlanger, B.F. (1982) Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.79, 4810–4814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    . Ng, D.S.S. & Isom, G.E. (1984) Eur. J. Pharmacol.102, 187–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ng, D.S.S. & Isom, G.E. (1985) Biochem. Pharmacol., submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    . Wahid, F.A. & Isom, G.E. (1980) Res. Comm. Subst. Abuse1, 451–458.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    . Caruso, T.P., Larson, D.L., Portoghese, P.S. & Takemori, A.E. (1980) J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther.213, 539–544.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gary E. Isom
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology School of Pharmacy and Pharmacal SciencePurdue UniversityW. LafayetteUSA

Personalised recommendations