Distribution and Functional Properties of PNA+ and PNA- Cells in Central and Peripheral Lymphoid Organs of the Chicken

  • K. Schauenstein
  • M. Rosenberg
  • A. Globerson
  • N. Sharon
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 149)


Peanut agglutinin (PNA) has turned out to be a potent tool to distinguish between cortical and medullary lymphocytes in the mouse thymus (1,2). In addition, more recent studies revealed that PNA may preferentially bind to cells acting as suppressors. PNA+ suppressor cells were detected in the fetal liver (3) and aging mouse spleen (4), as well as in the thymus of young adult animals (5). Furthermore, antigen-specific suppressors in the adult spleen were also characterized as PNA+ (6,7). Whereas the thymic and the antigen-specific splenic suppressor cells have been identified as T cells, the embryonic ones, and those appearing in aging were not eliminated by anti Thy 1.2 antibodies and complement (7 and unpublished observations). Hence, PNA seems to bind to suppressor cells of various membrane phenotypes. The possibility that PNA may enable identification and separation of various types of suppressor cells within the different lymphoid cell compartments thus seemed intriguing.


Spleen Cell Suppressor Cell Mixed Lymphocyte Reaction Chicken Serum Peanut Agglutinin 
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.
    Y. Reisner, M. Linker-Israeli, and N. Sharon. Cell Immunol. 25:129 (1976).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. London, S. Berrih, and J.F. Bach. J. Immunol. 121:438 (1978).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    H. Rabinowich, T. Umiel, Y. Reisner, N. Sharon, and A. Globerson. Cell. Immunol. 47:347 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. Globerson, L. Abel, and T. Umiel. Mech. Aging Dev. (1981) in press.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    T. Umiel, M. Linker-Israeli, M. Itzchaki, N. Trainin, Y. Reisner, and N. Sharon. Cell. Immunol. 37:134 (1978).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Y. Imai, T. Opuchi, T. Nakano, and T. Osawa. Immunol. Comm. 8:495 (1979).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. Ritterband, and A. Globerson. (1981) in this volume.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    B. Albini, and G. Wick. J. Immunol. 112:444 (1974).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. London, M.A. Horton. J. Immunol. 124:1803 (1980).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    M.L. Rose, M.S.C. Birbeck, V.J. Wallis, J.A. Forrester, and A.J.S. Davies. Nature 284:364 (1980).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    S. Berrih, J. London, B. Bonavida, and J.F. Bach. J. Immunol. Meth. 41:235 (1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    N. Sharon, in: “Immunology 1980”, M. Fougerau, ed., Academic Press, London, in press.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. Lunney, and G. Ashwell. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 73:341 (1976).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    K. Schauenstein. Dev. Comp. Immunol. 3:321 (1979).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. Schauenstein
    • 1
  • M. Rosenberg
    • 2
  • A. Globerson
    • 1
  • N. Sharon
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Cell BiologyThe Weizmann Institute of ScienceRehovotIsrael
  2. 2.Department of BiophysicsThe Weizmann Institute of ScienceRehovotIsrael

Personalised recommendations