Folia Microbiologica

, 30:277 | Cite as

Ontogenetic analysis of some surface markers on pig lymphocytes using fluorescence-activated cell sorter

  • F. Kovářů
  • H. Kovářů
  • Z. Fišar


Surface markers were demonstrated on pig lymphocytes using anti-T call-IgG and anti-Helix pomatia (HP) IgG during prenatal and postnatal development. A fluoreseenceactivated cell sorter analysis of T-cell surface markers was accompanied by an image analysis to prove the association of T antigenic determinants with the plasma membrane only. We found development-dependent changes in both anti-T cell and HP surface markers in both primary and secondary lymphatic organs.

  1. 1.

    The number of T-positive (T+) cells estimated by anti-T cell-IgG was very similar to the results obtained by spontaneous E-rosette forming tests. At all selected age intervals, changes in the number of T+ cells were not significant in the thymus, but a marked inerease in T+ cells was found in both spleen and lymph nodes. The image analysis confirmed the expression of T cell markers on the cell surface. The distribution of T cell markers was uneven,i.e. various degree of fluorescence intensity on whole ring-pattern projeetion of the cell surface image was estimated.

  2. 2.

    In second lymphatic organs especially, fluorescence intensity of cells,i.e. total number of T cell markers estimated by anti-T cell-IgG, increased with age. On fetal day 73, T cell markers were slightly expressed, but very high fluorescence intensity and heterogenous distribution of T cell markers on lymphocytes were found on fetal day 107 and postnatal day 56. The results indicate the possibility of functional maturation of various T cell markers on T cell subsets, furthermore a different degree of expression of T cell markers on various T cell subsets can be suggested.

  3. 3.

    The number of HP+ cells increased with age in both primary and secondary lymphatic organs.

  4. 4.

    In the prenatal period, the expression of HP receptors was very weak in both primary and secondary organs in contrast to the marked inerease in HP+ cells during the postnatal interval. Differences in fluorescence intensity of cells were found, representing the inerease by 22% in thymus cells comparing to cells of secondary lymphatic organs. Heterogeneity of HP+ cell populations in thymus was shown by the Scatchard plot, indicating at least two subpopulations of HP+ cells with different avidity to HP. Cells with low HP avidity could include a subset with cytolytic activity.



Cell Marker Surface Marker Prenatal Period Helix Pomatia Thymus Cell 
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.


  1. Binns R. M.: Cellular immunology in the pig.Proc. Roy. Soc. Med. 66, 1 (1973).Google Scholar
  2. Binns R. M., Symons D.B.A.: The ontogeny of lymphocyte immunoglobulin determinants and their relationship to antibody production in the fetal pig.Res. Vet. Sci. 16, 260 (1974).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Binns R.M.: Organisation of the lymphoreticular system and lymphocyte markers in the pig.Vet. Immunol. Immunopathol. 3, 95 (1982).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fišar. Z., Kovářů F., Kovářů H.: Ontogenetical dependence of some properties of thymocyte membranes, p. 356 inProc. 16 th FEBS Meeting, Moscow 1984.Google Scholar
  5. Hartman J., šrajer J., Fleischmannová V., Lodin Z.: Adhesion of dissociated mouse embryonic brain cells. A new method of quantitative evaluation.Physiol. Bohemoslov. 30, 295 (1981).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Herzenberg L.A., Herzenberg L.A.: Analysis and separation using the fluorescence activated cell sorter (FACS), p. 22 inHandbook of Experimental Immunology, 3rd edition (D. M. Weir, Ed.). Blackwell Sci. Publ., Oxford (England) 1978.Google Scholar
  7. Jarošková L., Trebichavský I., Říha I., Kovářů F., Holub M.: Immunoglobulin determinants in lymphocytes in germ-free piglets.Eur. J. Immunol. 3, 818 (1973).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jarošková L.: Membrane receptors on lymphocytes. Ontogenetic studies in the fetal pig.Acta Vet. Brno 46, Suppl. 4, 55 (1977).Google Scholar
  9. Jarošková L., Kovářů F.: Identification of T and B lymphocytes in pigs by combined E-rosette test and surface Ig labelling.J. Immunol. Meth. 22, 253 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jarošková L., Trebichavský I., KovÁŘťr F., Prokešová L.: Precursors of B-lymphocytes with surface IgM and their possible migration from bone marrow to peripheral lymphatic tissues.Lymphology 11, 81 (1978).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Kim Y.B., Huh N.D.: Natural killer and killer (NK/K) cell system in gnotobiotic miniature swine, p. 585 inRec. Adv. Germfree Res. (S. Sasaki, A. Ozawa, K. Hashimoto, Eds.). Tokai Univ. Press 1981.Google Scholar
  12. KovÁŘťr F., Stožický V., Kruml J., Dlabač V., Donát J., Novotná J.: Experimental surgery in the foetal period of mammals.Acta Vet. Brno, Suppl.3, 1 (1972).Google Scholar
  13. Kovářů F., Pospíšil M., Hopman J., Trebichavský I.: The morphological development and some functional features of the lymphatic tissue in pig fetuses, p. 252 inLymphology — Proe. éth Internat. Congr. (P. Málek, V. Bartoš, H. Weissleder, M. H. Witte, Eds.). G. Thieme Publ., Stuttgart and Avicenum, Prague 1978.Google Scholar
  14. Kovářů F., Štěpánková R., Kruml J., Mandel L., Kenig E.: Development of lymphatic and haemopoietic organs in germfree models.Folia Microbiol. 24, 32 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kovářů F., Jarošková L.: Development of E-rosette formation in ontogeny of pigs.Folia Biol. (Prague) 24, 399 (1979).Google Scholar
  16. Kovářů H., Kovářů F., Plášek J., Fišar Z., Mandel L.: Lectin-induced surface changes in lymphocytes of gnotobiotic pigs, p. 315 inLedins — Biology, Biochemistry, Clinical Biochemistry, Vol. 2 (T. C. Bog-Hansen, Ed.). W. de Gryuter Co., Berlin- New York 1982.Google Scholar
  17. Kovářů H., Kovářů F., Mareš V., Kozáková H., Fišar Z., Hartman J.: Using various types of Percoll gradients for isolation of populations and subpopulations of cells from lymphoid and non-lymphoid tissues and their characterization. (In Czech)čs. fyziol., in press (1985).Google Scholar
  18. Kruml J., Kovářů F., Pospíšil M., Trebichavský I.: The development of lymphatic tissue during ontogenesis, p. 35 inDevelopmental Aspects of Antibody Formation and Structure, Vol. 1 (J. Šterzl, I. Říha, Eds.). Academia, Prague 1970.Google Scholar
  19. Lu C.Y., Changelian P.S., Unanue E.R.: Alpha-fetoprotein inhibits macrophage expression of la antigens.J. Immunol. 132, 1722 (1984).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Mareš V., Kovářů F., Kovářů H.: Alphafetoprotein in the brain of developing rats and pigs. An immunofluorescent study of cell-and-tissue differentiation.Bas. Appl. Histochem. 26, 53 (1982).Google Scholar
  21. Mareš V., Kovářů F., Kovářů H., Müller L., Žižkovský V.: Alpha-fetoprotein in the brain of embryonic pigs.Biomed. Biochim. Acta, in press (1985).Google Scholar
  22. Mattes M. J., Holden H.T.: The distribution ofHelix pomatia lectin receptors on mouse lymphoid cells and other tissues.Eur. J. Immunol. 11, 358 (1981).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Poros A., Åhrlund-Richter L., Klein E., Hammarström S., Koide N.: Expression ofHelix pomatia haemagglutinin receptors on cytolytio receptors activated in mixed cultures.J. Immunol. Meth. 57, 9 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pospíšil M.,Kubrycht J.,Bednář M.,Bezoušek K.,Táborský O.: Modulation of K and NK cell activities in pigs, p. 379 inProc. 6th Eur. Immunol. Meeting, Interlaken (Switzerland) 1984.Google Scholar
  25. Prokešová L., Trebichavský I., Kovářů F., Kostka J., Rejnek J.: Ontogeny of immunoglobulin synthesis. Production of IgM, IgG and IgA in pig foetuses.Develop. Comp. Immunol. 5, 491 (1981).Google Scholar
  26. Rejnek J., Tučkova L., Trávníček J., Tlaskalová H., Kovářů F.: Isolation and properties of antigen-specific receptors from rabbit and pig lymphoid cells.Mol. Immunol. 17, 65 (1980).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Říha I., Trávníček J., Šírová M.: Lymphocyte immunoglobulin receptors in newborn piglets.Develop. Comp. Immunol. 7, 759 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Scatchard G.: The attraction of protein for small molecules and ions.Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 51, 660 (1949).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Slavík J.: Intracellular pH topography: Determination by a fluorescent probe.FEBS Lett. 156, 227 (1983).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Šterzl J.:Inductive Phase of Antibody Formation. Avieenum, Prague 1960.Google Scholar
  31. Šterzl J.: Quantitative and qualitative aspect of the inductive phase of antibody formation.J. Hyg. Epid. Microbiol. Immunol. 7, 301 (1963).Google Scholar
  32. Šterzl J., Rejnek J., Trávníček J.: Impermeability of pig placenta for antibodies.Folia Microbiol. 11, 7 (1966).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Šterzl J., Silverstein A.M.: Developmental aspects of immunity.Adv. Immunol. 5, 337 (1967).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Šterzl J., Šíma P., Medliín J., Tlaskalová H., Mandel L., Nordin A.: Induction of the primary response, preparation of the secondary response and tolerance, p. 865 inDevelopmental Aspects of Antibody Formation and Structure (J. Šterzl, I. Říha, Eds.). Academia, Prague 1970.Google Scholar
  35. Šterzl J., Kovářů F.: Development of lymphatic tissue and immunocompetency in pig foetuses and germ-free piglets.Acta Vet. Brno 46, Suppl. 4, 13 (1977).Google Scholar
  36. Tlaskaxová H., Hájek P., Šterzl J., Pospíšil M., Říha I., Marvanova H., Medlín J., Mandel L., Kbuml J., KovÁŘú F.: The development and antibody formation during embryonal and postnatal period, p. 767 inDevelopmental Aspects of Antibody Formation and Structure (J. Šterzl, I. Říha, Eds.). Academia, Prague 1970.Google Scholar
  37. Williams C.A., Chase M.W.:Methods in Immunology and Immunochemistry, Vol. 1, p. 319. Academic Press, New York - London 1967.Google Scholar
  38. Zajicek G., Shohat M., Melnik Y., Yeger A.: Image analysis of nucleated red blood cells.Comp. Biomed. Res. 16, 347 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zimmerman B., Swain S.L., Dutton R.W.: Immunosuppressive ATS. V. Analysis of the effect of anti-thymocyte serum on T-lymphocyte subsets.J. Immunol. 129, 515 (1982).PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Microbiology, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. Kovářů
    • 1
  • H. Kovářů
    • 1
  • Z. Fišar
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Gnotobiology, Institute of MicrobiologyCzechoslovak Academy of SciencesPrague 4

Personalised recommendations