Accessory Cell Neoplasia as a Result of the Breakdown of Immunological Regulation?

  • Valerie Wallis
  • Monisha Chaudhuri
  • Mark Brittel
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 237)


We have previously shown that the injection of spleen cells from old individual donors into young syngeneic recipients has two unexpected consequences (1). Firstly, in most recipients there is a gradual increase in the proportion of donor T cells and, secondly, the majority of the recipients develop tumours. These also derive from the donor inoculum. According to the classification of Dunn (2) they are type B reticulum cell neoplasms (RCN-B). The tumour cells have neither T nor B cell characteristics, most constitutively express class-II antigens, and those that have so far been tested function as accessory cells in in vitro assays (3–5). We have therefore suggested that they are the neoplastic counterpart of normal lymphoid dendritic cells (6). In the present paper the relationship between the two consequences of the injection of old cells is explored, and a hypothesis proposed to account for the finding that similar tumours, also of donor origin, can be induced in recipients of young syngeneic lymphocytes if they are subjected to repeated extrinsic antigenic stimulation.


Spleen Cell Donor Cell Donor Origin Accessory Cell Donor Population 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    V.J. Wallis, M. Chaudhuri, M.C. Jacob, B.A. Valkova, and A.J.S. Davies. Immunology 53: 769 (1984).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    T.B Dunn. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 14: 1281 (1954).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    M.P. Brittle, M.C. Jacob, K. Gomer, and D. Robertson. Immunology 54: 541 (1985).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    M.P. Brittle, M.C. Jacob, and K.J. Gomer. Immunology 55: 663 (1985).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    M.P. Brittle, V.J. Wallis, M. Chaudhuri, R.A. Goucher, and K.J. Gomer. Submitted to British Journal of Cancer.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    R.M. Steinman, and M.C. Nussenzweig. Immunol. Rev. 53: 127 (1980).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. Julius, E. Simpson, and L.A. Herzenberg. J. Immunology 3: 645 (1973).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    C.E. Ford, in: “Tissue Grafting and Radiation”, Appendix I, H.S. Micklem, and J.F. Loutit, eds., Academic Press, New York (1966).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    E. Gleichmann, H. Gleichmann, and W. Wilke. Transplant. Rev. 31: 156 (1976).PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Valerie Wallis
    • 1
  • Monisha Chaudhuri
    • 1
  • Mark Brittel
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Cancer Research Haddow LaboratoriesSutton, SurreyEngland

Personalised recommendations