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.
Contact sensitivity Footpad cell transfer Genetic restriction
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
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
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
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
Colizzi V., Bozzi L.: A mechanism for the depression of contact sensitivity with B-cell mitogens — Ann. Inst. Pasteur130C, 659, 1979.Google Scholar
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
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
Little G. R., Eisen H. N.: Preparation and characterization of antibodies specific for the 2,4,6-trinitrophenyl group — Biochemistry5, 3385, 1966.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
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
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
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