Advertisement

Ricerca in clinica e in laboratorio

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 123–128 | Cite as

Genetic restriction in the induction of contact sensitivity by footpad cell transfer

  • Vittorio Colizzi
Original Contributions
  • 8 Downloads

Summary

Cells taken from draining lymph nodes one day after application of oxazolone and picryl chloride induced contact sensitivity in syngeneic but not in allogeneic recipients. In contrast, the immunizing activity of cells taken four days after sensitization was not genetically restricted. The findings that ‘1-day’ cells incubated with anti-hapten antibodies break down the genetic restriction, and that ‘4-day’ cells lose their ability to induce contact sensitivity after complement treatment, suggest that two different mechanisms are involved in the induction of contact sensitivity.

Key-words

Contact sensitivity Footpad cell transfer Genetic restriction 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Asherson G. L., Mayhew B., Perera M. A. C. C.: The production of contact sensitivity by the injection into the footpad of recipients of the lymph node cells from mice 1 day after painting their skin with contact sensitizing agents: requirement for matching at the major histocompatibility complex between donor and recipient mice — Immunology37, 241, 1979.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Asherson G. L., Zembala M., Mayhew B.: Analysis of the induction phase of contact sensitivity by footpad transfer of regional lymph node cells: macrophages and radioresistant T cells induce immunity — Immunology32, 81, 1977.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Asherson G. L., Zembala M., Thomas W. R., Perera M. A. C. C.: Suppressor cells and the handling of antigen — Immunol. Rev.50, 3, 1980.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Colizzi V., Bozzi L.: A mechanism for the depression of contact sensitivity with B-cell mitogens — Ann. Inst. Pasteur130C, 659, 1979.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Garzelli C., Colizzi V., Campa M., Bozzi L., Falcone G.: Depression of contact sensitivity byPseudomonas aeruginosa-induced suppressor cells which affect the induction phase of immune response — Infect. Immun.26, 4, 1979.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Geiger B., Rosenthal K., Klein J., Zinkernagel R. M., Singer S. J.: Selective and unidirectional membrane redistribution of an H-2 antigen with an antibody-clustered viral antigen: relationship to mechanisms of cytotoxic T-cell interactions — Proc. nat. Acad. Sci. (Wash.)76, 4603, 1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Little G. R., Eisen H. N.: Preparation and characterization of antibodies specific for the 2,4,6-trinitrophenyl group — Biochemistry5, 3385, 1966.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Miller J. F. A. P., Vadas M. A., Whitelaw A., Gamble J.: Role of major histocompatibility complex gene products in delayed-type hypersensitivity — Proc. nat. Acad. Sci. (Wash.)73, 2486, 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ptak W., Rozycka D., Askenase P. W., Gershon R. K.: Role of antigen-presenting cells in the development and persistence of contact hypersensitivity — J. exp. Med.151, 362, 1980.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shevach E. M., Rosenthal A. S.: Function of macrophages in antigen recognition by guinea pig T lymphocytes. II. Role of the macrophage in the regulation of genetic control of the immune response — J. exp. Med.138, 1213, 1973.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Unanue E. R., Feldman J. D.: Role of macrophages in delayed hypersensitivity. I. Induction with macrophage-bound antigen — Cell. Immunol.2, 269, 1971.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Case Editrice «Il Ponte» 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vittorio Colizzi
    • 1
  1. 1.Istituto di MicrobiologiaUniversità degli Studi di PisaItalia

Personalised recommendations