Advertisement

Immune Facilitation of Allograft Survival across Restricted Differences at the H-2 Complex

  • William C. Davis
  • Gregory J. Ferebee
Chapter
  • 53 Downloads
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 64)

Abstract

Numerous studies have now documented that a number of parallels exist between the overt immune response of lower and higher vertebrates to allografts.1,2 In both, the immune response is influenced by a number of factors the most prominent of which are the genetic disparity between the donor and host and the type of tissue employed as an allograft. Whether across weak or strong histocompatibility barriers, skin grafts elicit the most vigorous response. This is manifested as chronic rejection across weak barriers and acute rejection across major barriers. Heart and kidney grafts, however, elicit a varied response.3,4,5 In the urodels,6 and certain semi-inbred strains of fish,7 heart grafts persist indefinitely or are rejected over a long time course. In inbred strains of rats3,4,5 and mice,8,9 kidney and in some instances, whole heart grafts are either rejected as rapidly as skin grafts or exhibit a prolonged survival time. In each group of animals, a correlation has been found between the strength of the genetic incompatibility and the duration of graft survival.10 A similar correlation has been found between the immunogenetic strength of histocompatibility antigens and the capacity of alloantibody to enhance graft survival.11 That is, it has been shown that it is easier to enhance the survival of grafts across weak barriers than strong barriers.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Hildeman, W.H., in Transplantation Antigens: Markers of Biological Individuality, 3 pp. (Academic Press, New York and London, 1972).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cohen, N., Am. Zool., 2: 193 (1971).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stuart, E.P., McKearn, T.J., and Fitch, Transplant Proc., 6: 53 (1974).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barker, C.F. and Billingham, R.E., Transplant. Proc., 3: 172 (1971).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    White, E., Hildemann, W.H., and Mullen, Y., Transplantation, 8: 602 (1969).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cohen, N. and Rich, L.C., Am. Zool., 10: 536 (1970).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kallman, K.D., Transplant. Proc., 2: 263 (1970).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Corry, R.J., Winn, H.J., and Russell, P.S., Transplant. Proc., 5: 733 (1973).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Skoskiewicz, M., Chase, C., Winn, H.J., and Russell, P.S., Transplant. Proc., 5: 721 (1973).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hildemann, W.H., Transplant. Rev., 3: 5 (1970).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hildemann, W.H. and Mullen, Y., Transplantation, 15: 231 (1973).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Feldman, J.D., Adv. Immunol., 15: 167 (1972).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    McKenzie, I.F.C. and Snell, G.D., J. Exp. Med., 138: 259 (1973).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Huber, B., Demant, P., and Festenstein, H., Transplant. Proc., 5: 1377 (1973).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Davis, W.C., Transplant. Proc., 5: 625 (1973).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Klein, J., Biology of the Mouse Histocompatibility-2 Complex. Principles of Immunogenetics Applied to a Single System. 620 pp. (New York, Springer-Verlag, 1975).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1975

Authors and Affiliations

  • William C. Davis
    • 1
  • Gregory J. Ferebee
    • 1
  1. 1.Washington State UniversityPullmanUSA

Personalised recommendations