The Significance of the Dose of Antigen in Immunity and Tolerance

  • J. Iványi
  • J. Černý
Conference paper
Part of the Current Topics in Microbiology and Immunology book series (CT MICROBIOLOGY, volume 49)


The discovery of the phenomenon of immunological tolerance stimulated study of the significance of the size of the dose of antigen in immune phenomena. It has become apparent that antibody synthesis is not the only outcome of injecting antigen into an animal and that a specific inhibition of antibody synthesis can also occur. The size of antigen dose may determine whether or not immunity or tolerance is induced, but the physical nature of the antigen and the ontogenetic stage of development of the animal also play a significant part. Apart from the question of balance of the reaction between immunity and tolerance, the significance of a study of the effect of the antigen dose as a factor which regulates the differentiation of immunologically competent cells acquired importance. The centre of these regulation processes appears to be the control of the molecular type of antibodies produced, which is reflected in the kinetics of the immune response and the development of immunological memory.


Spleen Cell Protein Antigen Czechoslovak Academy Antibody Formation Secondary Response 
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. Albright, J. F., and T.W. Evans: Influence of antigen dosage on kinetics of hemagglutinating antibody production. J. Immunol. 95, 368–377 (1965).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Albright, J. F., and T. Makinodan: Dynamics of expression of competence of antibody-producing cells. In: Molecular and cellular basis of antibody formation. Prague: Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences 1965.Google Scholar
  3. Asherson, G. L., and S. H. Stone: Selective and specific inhibition of 24 hour skin reactions in the guinea pig. I. Immune deviation: description of the phenomenon and the effect of splenectomy. Immunology 9, 205–217 (1965).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Baker, P. J., M. Bernstein, V. Pasanen, and M. Landy: Detection and enumeration of antibody-producing cells by specific adherence of antigen-coated bentonite particles. J. Immunol. 97, 767–777 (1966).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Baker, P. J., and M. Landy: Brevity of the inductive phase in the immune response of mice to capsular polysaccharide antigens. J. Immunol. 99, 687–694 (1967).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bellanti, J. A., D. V. Eitzman, J. B. Robbins, and R. T. Smith: The development of the immune response. Studies on the agglutinin response to Salmonella flagellar antigens in the newborn rabbit. J. exp. Med. 117, 479–496 (1963).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Benezra, D., I. Gery, and A. M. Davies: Transformation of rabbit lymphocytes by specific antigens. Proc. Soc. exp. Biol. (N.Y.) 125, 1305–1308 (1967).Google Scholar
  8. Blazkovec, A. A., and H. R. Wolfe: Factors affecting the primary and secondary responses to bovine serum albumin in chickens. Int. Arch. Allergy 26, 80–95 (1965).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Borel, Y., M. Fanconnet, and P. A. Miescher: 7S versus 19S anamnestic response in rabbits. Proc. Soc. exp. Biol. (N.Y.) 117, 603–607 (1964).Google Scholar
  10. Borel, Y., M. Fanconnet, and P. A. Miescher: Dissociation of immune responses by the induction of partial unresponsiveness. Relationship of PCA, and complement-fixing antibody formation to the suppression of delayed hypersensitivity. J. Immunol. 98, 881–887 (1967).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Britton, S., and G. Möller: Immunity and tolerance to a bacterial lipopoly-saccharide antigen studied at the cellular level. In: Genetic variations in somatic cells. Prague: Academia 1966.Google Scholar
  12. Brooke, M. S.: Breaking of immunological paralysis by injection of a specific depolymerase. Nature (Lond.) 204, 1319–1320 (1964).Google Scholar
  13. Brownstone, A., N. A. Mitchison, and R. Pitt-Rivers: Biological studies with an iodine-containing synthetic immunological determinant 4-hydroxy-3-iodo-5-nitrophenylacetic acid (NIP) and related compounds. Immunology 10, 481–492 (1966).Google Scholar
  14. Burnet, F. M., and F. Fenner: The production of antibodies, 2nd ed. Melbourne: Macmillan Co. 1949.Google Scholar
  15. Bussard, E. A., and S. G. Anderson: The primary antibody response of individual spleen cells in difusion chamber. Immunology 11, 67–71 (1966).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Campbell, D. H., and J. S. Garvey: Nature of retained antigen and its role in immune mechanisms. Advanc. Immunol. 3, 261–313 (1963).Google Scholar
  17. Capalbo, E. E., and T. Makinodan: Doubling time of mouse spleen cells during the latent and log phases of primary antibody response. J. Immunol. 92, 234–242 (1964).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Carlinfanti, E.: Antitoxin response to repeated daily doses of diphtheria toxoid. J. Immunol. 66, 311–315 (1951).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Caron, G. A.: The effects of concentration on antigen induced lymphocyte transformation in vitro. Int. Arch. Allergy 31, 441–448 (1967).Google Scholar
  20. Celada, F.: Quantitative studies of the adoptive immunological memory in mice. II. Linear transmission of cellular memory. J. exp. Med. 125, 199–211 (1976).Google Scholar
  21. Chanmougan, D., and R. S. Schwartz: Enhancement of antibody synthesis by 6-mercaptopurine. J. exp. Med. 124, 363–368 (1966).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Cohen, E. P., and G. J. Thorbecke: Specifity of reaction to antigenic stimulation in lymph nodes of immature rabbits. II. Supression of local morphologic reactions to alum-precipitated bovine serum albumin by intraperitoneal injections of soluble bovine serum albumin in neonatal rabbits. J. Immunol. 93, 629–636 (1964).Google Scholar
  23. Cohen, M. J., and E. P. Cohen: Proliferation of transferred spleen cells after antigenic challenge. Nature (Lond.) 203, 418–419 (1964).Google Scholar
  24. Cohen, M. W., and G. J. Thorbecke: Interference by newborn lymphoid cells with establishment of immunologic unresponsiveness to protein antigen. Proc. Soc. exp. Biol. (N.Y.) 112, 10–12 (1963).Google Scholar
  25. Cohen, S. G., and T. M. Sapp: Experimental eosinophilia. X. Relation of antigen-antibody complex size and protein molecular weight to cell responses. Proc. Soc. exp. Biol. (N.Y.) 124, 1034–1037 (1967).Google Scholar
  26. Coons, A. H., E. H. Leduc, and J. M. Conolly: Studies on antibody production. I. A method for the histochemical demonstration of specific antibody and its application to study of hyperimmune rabbits. J. exp. Med. 102, 49–59 (1955).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Černý, J., and J. Iványi: The dose of antigen required for the suppression of the IgM and IgG antibody response in chickens. II. Studies at the cellular level. Folia biol. (Pragha) 12, 343–354 (1966).Google Scholar
  28. Černý, J., and J. Iványi: Variation in tolerance dose requirements as related to heterogeneity of the immune response. Nature (Lond.) 213, 1017–1018 (1967).Google Scholar
  29. Černý, J., J. Iványi, J. Madár, and T. Hraba: The nature of the delay in the immune response after administration of large doses of protein antigen in chicks. Folia biol. (Praha) 11, 402–405 (1965).Google Scholar
  30. Černý, J., and V. Viklicky: The effect of antigen dose on the changes in the spleen: tolerance versus immunity. In: Germinal centers in immune response. Berlin-Heidelberg-New York: Springer 1967.Google Scholar
  31. Černý, J., and V. Viklicky: Cellular changes and gamma globulin production during a paralysing treatment in the mouse. Exp. Hemat. (in press).Google Scholar
  32. De Weck, A. L., and J. R. Frey: Immunotolerance to simple chemicals. Basel and New York: S. Karger 1966.Google Scholar
  33. Diener, E., and W. D. Armstrong: Induction of antibody formation and tolerance in vitro to a purified protein antigen. Lancet 1967 II, No 7529, 1281–1285.Google Scholar
  34. Dietrich, F. M., and W. O. Weigle: Induction of tolerance to heterologous proteins and their catabolism in C57BL/6 mice. J. exp. Med. 117, 621–631 (1963).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Dixon, F. J., H. Jacot-Guillarmod, and P. J. McConahey: The antibody response of rabbits and rats to hemocyanin. J. Immunol. 97, 350–355 (1966).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Dixon, F. J., H. Jacot-Guillarmod, and P. J. McConahey: The effect of passively administered antibody on antibody synthesis. J. exp. Med. 125, 1119–1135 (1967).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Dixon, F. J., and P. H. Maurer: Immunologic unresponsiveness induced by protein antigens. J. exp. Med. 101, 245–257 (1955).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Dowden, S. J., and E. E. Sercarz: The X-Y-Z scheme of immunocyte maturation. II. The effect of antigen on spontaneous escape from immune paralysis. J. Immunol. 98, 827–835 (1967).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Dresser, D. W.: Specific inhibition of antibody production. II. Paralysis induced in adult mice by small quantities of protein antigen. Immunology 5, 378–388 (1962).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Dresser, D. W.: Specific inhibition of antibody production. IV. Standardization of the antigen-alimination test; immunological paralysis of mice previously immunized. Immunology 9, 261–273 (1965).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Dresser, D. W., and G. Gowland: Immunological paralysis induced in adult rabbits by small amounts of a protein antigen. Nature (Lond.) 203, 733–736 (1964).Google Scholar
  42. Dresser, D. W., and N. A. Mitchison: The mechanism of immunological paralysis. Advanc. Immunol. 8, 129–181 (1968).Google Scholar
  43. Dresser, D. W., and H. H. Wortis: Use of antiglobulin sera to detect cells producing antibody with low hemolytic efficiency. Nature (Lond.) 208, 859–861 (1965).Google Scholar
  44. Dutton, R. W.: The effect of antigen on the proliferation of spleen cell suspensions from tolerant rabbits. J. Immunol. 93, 814–815 (1964).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Dutton, R. W., and J. D. Eady: An in vitro system for the study of the mechanism of antigenic stimulation in the secondary response. Immunology 7, 40–53 (1964).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Dutton, R. W., and G. M. Page: The response of spleen cells from immunized rabbits to cross-reacting antigens in an in vitro system. Immunology 7, 665–670 (1964).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Dvorak, H. F., J. B. Billote, J. S. McCarthy, and M. H. Flax: Immunologic unresponsiveness in the adult guinea pig. I. Suppression of the delayed hypersensitivity and antibodv formation to protein antigens. J. Immunol. 94, 966–975 (1965).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Dvorak, H. F., and M. H. Flax: Immunologic unresponsiveness in the adult guinea pig. II! The kinetics of unresponsiveness. J. Immunol. 96, 546–553 (1966).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Farr, R. S., and F. J. Dixon: The effect of antigen concentration on the initiation of detectable antibody synthesis in rabbits. J. Immunol. 85, 250–257 (1960).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Fecsik, A. I., and A. H. Coons: Studies on antibody production. XI. Variation in the secondary response as a function of the length of the interval between two antigenic stimuli. J. exp. Med. 120, 1041–1049 (1964).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Feingold, B. F., E. Benjamini, and M. Shizimu: Induction of delayed and immediate types of skin reactivity in guinea pigs by variation in dosages of antigens. Ann. Allergy 22, 279–291 (1964).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Fishman, M., J. J. van Rood, and F. L. Adler: The initiation of antibody formation by ribonucleic acid from specifically stimulated macrophages. In: Molecular and cellular basis of antibody formation. Prague: Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences 1965.Google Scholar
  53. Fitch, F. W., C. Pierce, R. L. Hunter, D. Cannon, and R. W. Wissler: Recent observations on the origin and fate of antigen stimulated cells in the rat spleen. In: Germinal centers in immune response. Berlin-Heidelberg-New York: Springer 1967.Google Scholar
  54. Frei, P. C., B. Benacerraf, and G. J. Thorbecke: Phagocytosis of the antigen a crucial step in the induction of the primary response. Proc. nat. Acad. Sci. (Wash.) 53, 20 (1965).Google Scholar
  55. Freund, J.: The response of immunized animals to specific and non-specific stimuli. In: The nature and significance of the antibody response. New York: Columbia University Press 1953.Google Scholar
  56. Gery, I., and B. H. Waksman: Role of the thymus in tolerance. V. Suppressive effect of treatment with non-aggregated and aggregated bovine gamma globulin on specific immune responses in normal adult rats. J. Immunol. 98, 446–460 (1967).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Gras, J., and M. Dalmau: Antibody inhibition by a minimal dose of antigen and response to a sudden increase of the dose. Nature (Lond.) 210, 430–431 (1966).Google Scholar
  58. Hájek, P., and L. Mandel: Antibody response of young animals to bacteriophages of different immunological behaviour: ØX 174 and T2. Folia microbiol. (Praha) 11, 282–289 (1966).Google Scholar
  59. Halpern, B. N., R. W. Ferraresi, T. Neveu et A. Brannelec: L’absence de synthèse d’anticorps in vitro par les cellules lymphoides, prélevees chez des animaux en etat d’immuno-paralysis. Int. Arch. Allergy 25, 145–153 (1964).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Hanan, R., and J. Oyama: Inhibition of antibody formation in mature rabbits by contact with the antigen at an early age. J. Immunol. 73, 49–53 (1954).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Hanna, M. G., Jr., C. C. Congdon, and C. J. Wust: Effect of antigen dose on lymphatic tissue germinal center changes. Proc. Soc. exp. Biol. (N.Y.) 121, 286–290 (1966).Google Scholar
  62. Harris, G.: Macrophages from tolerant rabbits as mediators of a specific immunological response in vitro. Immunology 12, 159–163 (1967).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Hašek, M.: Critical factors governing the response pattern: immunity versus tolerance. In: IIIrd Int. Symposium on Immunopathology. Basel: Benno Schwabe & Co. 1963.Google Scholar
  64. Hašek, M., A. Lengerová, and T. Hraba: Transplantation immunity and tolerance. Advanc. Immunol. 1, 1–66 (1961).Google Scholar
  65. Hašek, M., and A. Puza: Induction of tolerance in adult life and reminiscence of tolerance. In: Mechanisms of immunological tolerance. Prague: Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences 1962.Google Scholar
  66. Hege, J. S., and L. J. Cole: Antibody plaque forming cells: Kinetics of primary and secondary responses. J. Immunol. 96, 559–569 (1966).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Hraba, T.: The mechanisms of immunological tolerance. Boston: Karger 1968.Google Scholar
  68. Humphrey, J. H.: Immunological unresponsiveness to protein antigens in rabbits. I. The duration of unresponsiveness following a single injection at birth. Immunology 7, 449–461 (1964 a).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Humphrey, J. H.: Immunological unresponsiveness to protein antigens in rabbits. II. The nature of the subsequent antibody response. Immunology 7, 462–473 (1964b).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Ingraham, J. S.: Dynamic aspects of the formation of serum antibody in rabbits. Exponential and arithmetic phases in the rise of titer following a reinjection of sulfanilazo bovine gamma globulin. J. Immunol. 92, 208–222 (1964).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Ingraham, J. S., and A. Bussard: Application of localized hemolysin reaction for specific detection of individual antibody forming cells. J. exp. Med. 119, 667–684 (1964).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Iványi, J., and J. Cerny: The effect of protein antigen dosage on its elimination from the blood and organs. Folia biol. (Praha) 11, 335–349 (1965).Google Scholar
  73. Iványi, J., J. Cerny, T. Hraba, and J. Cerny: Immunological tolerance to human serum albumin (HSA) in chickens of adult and juvenile age. Folia biol. (Praha) 10, 198–209 (1964a).Google Scholar
  74. Iványi, J., J. Cerny, T. Hraba, and J. Cerny: The elimination of heterologous and homologous serum proteins in chickens at various ages. Folia biol. (Praha) 10, 275–284 (1964b).Google Scholar
  75. Iványi, J., M. Maler, L. Wudl, and E. E. Sercarz: High-dose delay of the immune response. Effect of Actinomycin D on continuation of the immune response in vitro. J. exp. Med. 127, 1149–1163 (1968).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Iványi, J., and V. Valentova: The immunological significance of taxonomic origin of protein antigens in chickens. Folia biol. (Praha) 12, 36–48 (1966).Google Scholar
  77. Iványi, J., V. Valentova, and J. Černý: The dose of antigen required for the suppression of the IgM and IgG antibody response in chickens. I. The kinetics and characterization of serum antibodies. Folia biol. (Praha) 12, 158–167 (1966).Google Scholar
  78. Jacob, F., and J. Monod: Genetic regulatory mechanisms in the synthesis of proteins. J. molec. Biol. 3, 318–356 (1961).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. Jerne, N. K.: Study of avidity based on rabbit skin responses to diphteria toxin-antitoxin mixtures. Acta path. microbiol. scand., Suppl. 87, 3–183 (1951).Google Scholar
  80. Jerne, N. K.: Studies on the primary immune cellular response in mice. In: Molecular and cellular basis of antibody formation. Prague: Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences 1965.Google Scholar
  81. Jerne, N. K., and A. A. Nordin: Plaque formation in agar by single antibody producing cells. Science 140, 405 (1963).Google Scholar
  82. Jerne, N. K., A. A. Nordin, and C. Henry: The agar plaque technique for recognizing antibody-producing cells. In: Cell-bound antibodies. Philadelphia: Wistar Institute Press 1963.Google Scholar
  83. Jílek, M., and J. Sterzl: Influence of the amount of antigen and the interval on the secondary reaction. Folia microbiol. (Praha) 12, 6–20 (1967).Google Scholar
  84. Jones, V. E., and S. S. Leszkowitz: The production of unresponsiveness to delayed hypersensitivity with a single antigenic determinant. J. exp. Med. 122, 505–515 (1965).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. Leduc, E. H., A. H. Coons, and J. M. Conolly: Studies on antibody production. II. The primary and secondary response in the popliteal lymph node of the rabbit, J. exp. Med. 102, 61–71 (1955).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. Leszkowitz, S.: Production of hapten-specific unresponsiveness in adult guinea pigs by prior injection of monovalent conjugates. Immunology 13, 9–17 (1967).Google Scholar
  87. Liacopoulos, P., and J. H. Good: Transplantation tolerance induced in adult mice by protein overloading of donors. Science 146, 1305–1307 (1964).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. Leszkowitz, S., and T. Neveu: Non-specific inhibition of the immediate and delayed types of hypersensitivity during immune paralysis of adult guinea pigs. Immunology 7, 26–39 (1964).Google Scholar
  89. Liacopoulos, P., M. F. Perramant, and R. Binaghi: Increased IgG synthesis during the induction of immunologic paralysis in adult guinea pigs. Nature (Lond.) 216, 81–82 (1967).Google Scholar
  90. Mäkelä, O., and N. A. Mitchison: The effect of antigen dosage on the response of adoptively transferred cells. Immunology 8, 549–556 (1965).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. Makinodan, T., and J. F. Albright: Cellular variation during the immune response: one possible model of cellular differentiation. J. cell. comp. Physiol. 60, Suppl. 1, 129–144 (1962).Google Scholar
  92. Makinodan, T., and J. F. Albright: Proliferative and differentiative manifestation of cellular immune potential. Progr. Allergy 10, 1–36 (1967).Google Scholar
  93. Makinodan, T., I. Hoppe, T. Sado, E. E. Capalbo, and M. R. Leonard: The suppressive effect of supraoptimum dose of antigen on the secondary antibody-forming response of spleen cells cultured in cell-impermeable diffusion chambers. J. Immunol. 95, 466–479 (1965).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. Makinodan, T., and W. J. Peterson: Relative antibody forming capacity of spleen cells as a function of age. Proc. nat. Acad. Sci. (Wash.) 48, 234 (1962).Google Scholar
  95. Makinodan, T., and W. J. Peterson: Growth and senescence of the primary antibody-forming potential of the spleen. J. Immunol. 93, 886–896 (1964).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. Mills, J. A.: The immunologic significance of antigen induced lymphocyte transformation in vitro. J. Immunol. 97, 239–247 (1966).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. Mitchison, N. A.: Long-term processes in paralysis. In: Mechanisms of immunological tolerance. Prague: Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences 1962a.Google Scholar
  98. Mitchison, N. A.: Tolerance of erythrocytes in poultry: Loss and abolition. Immunology 5, 341–358 (1962b).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. Mitchison, N. A.: Induction of immunological paralysis in two zones of dosage. Proc. roy. Soc. B 161, 275–299 (1964).Google Scholar
  100. Mitchison, N. A.: Recovery from immunological paralysis in relation to age and residual antigen. Immunology 9, 129–138 (1965).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  101. Möller, G., and H. Wigzell: Antibody synthesis at the cellular level. Antibodyinduced supression of 19S and 7S anitbody response. J. exp. Med. 121, 969–989 (1965).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  102. Monod, J.: Antibodies and induced enzymes. In: Cellular and humoral aspects of the hypersensitive states. New York: Hoeber & Harper 1959.Google Scholar
  103. Morrison, S. L., and G. Terres: Immune degradation in passively sensitised mice. II. Degradation of human and bovine serum albumin in mice concomitantly injected with various heterologous antisera. J. Immunol. 94, 667–673 (1965).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. Nachtigal, D., and M. Feldman: Immunological unresponsiveness to protein antigens in rabbits exposed to X-irradiation or 6-mercaptopurine treatment. Immunology 6, 356–369 (1963).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  105. Nakano, M., and W. Braun: Cell-released non-specific stimulators of antibody forming spleen cell populations. J. Immunol. 99, 570–575 (1967).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  106. Nathan, H. C., S. Bieber, G. B. Elion, and G. H. Hitchings: Detection of agens which interfere with the immune response. Proc. Soc. exp. Biol. (N.Y.) 107, 796–799 (1961).Google Scholar
  107. Neiders, M. E., D.A. Rowley, and F. W. Fitch: The sustained suppression of hemolysin response in passively immunized rats. J. Immunol. 88, 718–724 (1962).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  108. Nettesheim, P., T. Makinodan, and M.L. Williams: Regenerative potential of immunocompetent cells. I. Lack of recovery of secondary antibody forming potential after X-irradiation. J. Immunol. 99, 150–157 (1967).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  109. Nezlin, R. S.: The change in the molecular weight of antibodies synthesized in tissue culture after second immunization. In: Molecular and cellular basis of antibody formation. Prague: Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences 1965.Google Scholar
  110. Nossal, G. J. V., G. L. Ada, and C. M. Austen: Antigens in immunity. X. Induction of immunologic tolerance to Salmonella adelaide flagellin. J. Immunol. 95, 665–672 (1965b).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  111. Nossal, G. J. V., C. M. Austin, and G. L. Ada: Antigens in immunity. VIL Analysis of immunological memory. Immunology 9, 333–348 (1965a).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  112. Pagoulatos, M. G.: Activation des ribosomes spleniques et synthese des anticorps. C.R. Acad. Sci. (Paris) 260, 1813–1816 (1965).Google Scholar
  113. Perkins, E.H., and T. Makinodan: The suppressive role of mouse peritoneal phagocytes in agglutinin response. J. Immunol. 94, 765–777 (1965).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  114. Porter, R. J.: Secondary macroglobulin antibody response to plasma proteins in rabbits. Proc. Soc. exp. Biol. (N.Y.) 121, 107–109 (1966).Google Scholar
  115. Pospíšil, M., and P. Hájek: Secondary response in vitro to antigen ØX 174 phage. Folia microbiol (Praha) 12, 544–550 (1967).Google Scholar
  116. Ríha, I.: Antibody formation in young rabbits immunized with erythrocytes. Folia microbiol. (Praha) 6, 355–361 (1961).Google Scholar
  117. Rittenberg, M. B., and E. L. Nelson: Lengthened induction period or immunologic unresponsiveness depending on antigen dose in adult X-irradiated rabbits. Proc. Soc. exp. Biol. (N.Y.) 113, 101–104 (1963).Google Scholar
  118. Roberts, A. N.: Quantitative cellular distribution of tritiated antigen in immunized mice. J. Amer. Path. 44, 411–430 (1964).Google Scholar
  119. Rowley, D. A., and F. W. Fitch: Homeostasis of antibody formation in the adult rat. J. exp. Med. 120, 987–1005 (1964).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  120. Rowley, D. A., and F. W. Fitch: The mechanisms of tolerance produced in rats to sheep erythrocytes. I. Plaque-forming cell and antibody response to single and multiple injections of antigen. J. exp. Med. 121, 671–582 (1965).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  121. Rubenstein, M., and S. M. Wolff: Suppression of antibody to endotoxin with 6-mercaptopurine: effect of antigen dose. Nature (Lond.) 203, 1390 (1964).Google Scholar
  122. Sado, T., and T. Makinodan: The cell cycle of blast cells involved in secondary antibody response. J. Immunol. 93, 696–700 (1964).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  123. Sahiar, K., and R. S. Schwartz: The immunoglobulin sequence. I. Arrest by 6-mercaptopurine and restitution by antibody antigen or splenectomy. J. Immunol. 95, 345–354 (1965).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  124. Salvin, S. B.: Occurence of delayed hypersensitivity during development of Arthus type hypersensitivity. J. exp. Med. 107, 109–124 (1958).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  125. Schechter, I.: Competition of antigenic determinants in normal and tolerant rabbits. Israel J. Chem. 5, 110 (1967).Google Scholar
  126. Schwartz, R. S., and W. Dameshek: The role of antigen dosage in drug-induced immunologic tolerance. J. Immunol. 90, 703–710 (1963).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  127. Sercarz, E. E., and V. V. Byers: The X-Y-Z scheme of immunocyte maturation. III. Early IgM memory and the nature of the memory cell. J. Immunol. 98, 836–843 (1967).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  128. Sercarz, E. E., and V. V. Byers: The absence of antibody producing cells during unresponsiveness to BSA in the mouse. J. Immunol. 90, 478–491 (1963).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  129. Sercarz, E. E., V. V. Byers, and A. H. Coons: The exhaustion of specific antibody producing capacity during a secondary response. In: Mechanisms of immunological tolerance. Prague: Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences 1962.Google Scholar
  130. Simonsen, M.: On the acquisition of tolerance by adult cells. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 87, 382–390 (1960).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  131. Simonsen, M.: Graft versus host reactions. Their natural history and applicability as tools of research. Progr. Allergy 6, 349 (1962).Google Scholar
  132. Sinclair, N. R., and E. V. Elliott: Neonatal thymectomy and the decrease in antigen-sensitivity of the primary response and immunological memory” systems. Immunology 15, 325 (1968).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  133. Siskind, G. W., P. Y. Paterson, and L. Thomas: Induction of unresponsiveness and immunity in newborn and adult mice with pneumococcal polysaccharide. J. Immunol. 90, 929–934 (1963).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  134. Smith, J. H., and R. St. John-Brooks: J. Hyg. (Lond.) 12, 77 (1912).Google Scholar
  135. Smith, R. T.: Studies on the mechanism of immune tolerance. In: Mechanisms of antibody formation. Prague: Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences 1960.Google Scholar
  136. Smith, R. T.: Immunological tolerance of nonliving antigens. Advanc. Immunol. 1, 67–129 (1961).Google Scholar
  137. Sorem, G. L., and G. Terres: The temporal relationship of acquired tolerance and the immune response following injection of bovine serum albumin into neonatal mice. J. Immunol. 90, 217–223 (1963).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  138. Stavitsky, A. B., M. D. Schoenberg, R. D. Moore, and J. M. Freeman: Cellular origin of rabbit antibodies to diphteria toxoid and mycobacteria in complete Freund’s adjuvant. In: Molecular and cellular basis of antibody formation. Prague: Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences 1965.Google Scholar
  139. Steiner, L. A., and H. N. Eisen: Variations in the immune response to a simple determinant. Bact. Rev. 30, 383–396 (1966).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  140. Šterzl, J.: Immunological tolerance as a result of terminal differentiation of immunologically competent cells. Nature (Lond.) 209, 416–417 (1966).Google Scholar
  141. Šterzl, J., and M. Jílek: Number of antibody-forming cells in primary and secondary reactions after administration of antigen. Nature (Lond.) 216, 1233–1235 (1967).Google Scholar
  142. Šterzl, J., and I. Ríha: Detection of cells producing 7S antibodies by the plaque technique. Nature (Lond.) 208, 858–859 (1965).Google Scholar
  143. Šterzl, J., and A. M. Silverstein: Developmental aspects of immunity. Advanc. Immunol. 5, 337–459 (1967).Google Scholar
  144. Šterzl, J., and Z. Trnka: Effect of very large doses of bacterial antigen on antibody production in newborn rabbits. Nature (Lond.) 179, 918–919 (1957).Google Scholar
  145. Šterzl, J., J. Veselý, M. Jílek, and L. Mandel: The inductive phase of antibody formation studied with isolated cells. In: Molecular and cellular basis of antibody formation. Prague: Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences 1965.Google Scholar
  146. Stevens, K.M.: Some considerations of the antigen dose-antibody response relationship. J. Immunol. 76, 187–191 (1956).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  147. Svehag, S.-E., and B. Mandel: The formation and properties of poliovirus-neutralising antibody. I. 19S and 7S antibody formation: differences in kinetics and antigen dose requirement for induction. J. exp. Med. 119, 1–20 (1964a).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  148. Svehag, S.-E., and B. Mandel: The formation and properties of poliovirus-neutralising antibody. II. 19 S and 7S antibody formation: differences in antigen dose requirements for sustained synthesis, anamnesis and sensitivity to X-irradiation. J. exp. Med. 119, 21–40 (1964b).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  149. Taliaferro, W. H.: Synthesis and degradation of antibody. J. cell. comp. Physiol. 50, Suppl. 1, 1–26 (1957).Google Scholar
  150. Taliaferro, W. H., and L. G. Taliaferro: Effect of X-rays on hemolysin formation following various immunization and irradiation procedures. J. Infect. Dis. 95, 117–133 (1954).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  151. Taliaferro, W. H., and L. G. Taliaferro: The effect of antigen dosage on the Forssman hemolysin response in rabbits. J. infect. Dis. 113, 155–169 (1963).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  152. Tannenberg, W. J. K.: Induction of 19S antibody synthesis without stimulation of cellular proliferation. Nature (Lond.) 214, 293–295 (1967).Google Scholar
  153. Terres, C., and W. L. Hughes: Acquired immune tolerance in mice to crystalline bovine serum albumin. J. Immunol. 83, 459–467 (1959).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  154. Terres, C., and G. L. Sorem: Immune degradation in passively sensitized mice. III. Degradation of iodine-labelled rabbit antibody. J. Immunol. 94, 674–681 (1965).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  155. Thorbecke, G. J., and B. Benacerraf: Tolerance in adult rabbits by repeated non-imunogenic doses of BSA. Immunology 13, 141–145 (1967).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  156. Thorbecke, G. J., G. W. Siskind, and N. Goldberger: The induction in mice of sensitization and immunological unresponsiveness by neonatal injection of bovine gamma-globulin. J. Immunol. 87, 147–152 (1961).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  157. Uhr, J.W.: The heterogeneity of the immune response. Science 145, 457–464 (1964).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  158. Uhr, J.W., and M. S. Finkelstein: Antibody formation. IV. Formation of rapidly and slowly sedimenting antibodies and immunological memory to bacteriophage ØX 174. J. exp. Med. 117, 457–477 (1963).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  159. Uhr, J.W., and M. S. Finkelstein: The kinetics of antibody formation. Progr. Allergy 10, 37–83 (1967).Google Scholar
  160. Uhr, J.W., M. S. Finkelstein, and J. B. Baumann: Antibody formation. III. The primary and secondary antibody response to bacteriophage ØX 174 in guinea pigs. J. exp. Med. 115, 655–670 (1962).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  161. Urso, P., and T. Makinodan: The roles of cellular division and maturation in the formation of precipitating antibody. J. Immunol. 90, 897–907 (1963).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  162. Valentová, V., J. Černý, and J. Iványi: The characterization of the immunological memory of the IgM type of response in chickens. Folia biol. (Praha) 12, 207–211 (1966).Google Scholar
  163. Valentová, V., J. Černý, and J. Iványi: Immunological memory of IgM and IgG type of antibodies. I. Requirements of antigen dose for induction and of time interval for development of memory. Folia biol. (Praha) 13, 100–108 (1967.Google Scholar
  164. Wigzell, H., G. Möller, and B. Andersson: Studies at the cellular level of the 19S immune response. Acta pathol. microbiol. scand. 66, 530–540 (1966).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  165. Wolfe, H. R.: Duration and maintenance of induced tolerance in the young animal. In: Tolérance acquise et tolérance naturelle à l’égard de substances antigéniques définies. Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique 1963.Google Scholar
  166. Wolfe, H. R., A. P. Mueller, J. Nees, and C. H. Tempelis: Precipitin production in chickens. XVI. The relationship of age to antibody production. J. Immunol. 79, 142–146 (1957).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  167. Zaleski, M., J. Černý, and T. Hraba: Cytological changes in the regional lymph nodes of rabbits after local administration of human serum albumin. Folia biol. (Praha) 12, 22–28 (1966).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin · Heidelberg 1969

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Iványi
    • 1
  • J. Černý
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Experimental Biology and GeneticsCzechoslovak Academy of SciencesPragueCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations