Skip to main content
PMC home page
Cancer Immunology, Immunotherapy : CII logoLink to Cancer Immunology, Immunotherapy : CII
. 1987 Feb;24(1):25–36. doi: 10.1007/BF00199829

Immune reactivity in SL2 lymphoma-bearing mice compared with SL2-immunized mice

Roel A De Weger 1,✉, Bert Wilbrink 1, Roel M P Moberts 1, Dennis Mans 1, Ralph Oskam 1, Willem Den Otter 1
PMCID: PMC11038171  PMID: 3493070

Abstract

We have studied the rather paradoxical phenomenon of the growth of an antigenic tumor in an immunocomponent host. This phenomenon was studied by comparing (a) the lymphocyte reactivity and (b) the macrophage cytotoxicity, during SL2 growth in DBA/2 mice (SL2-bearing mice) and in DBA/2 mice immunized against SL2 tumor cells (SL2-immune mice). Immune mice rejected a challenge of tumor cells. The immune T-lymphocytes rendered macrophages cytotoxic (arming) and were able to transfer tumor resistance to naive animals. Nonimmunized mice did not reject a challenge of SL2 cells. In these tumor-bearing mice various forms of immune reactivity were tested. Lymphocytes with the capacity to arm macrophages could not be found in the lymphoid organs. However, lymphocytes isolated from the tissue directly surrounding the subcutaneous SL2 tumor could arm macrophages in vitro.

Shortly after subcutaneous tumor grafting cytotoxic macrophages were found in the peritoneal cavity. In the serum macrophage arming factors were detected that rendered macrophages cytotoxic in vitro. This cytotoxicity of the peritoneal macrophages and the presence of macrophage arming factors in the serum showed a similar biphasic pattern. The first phase of cytotoxicity between day 3 and 8 after tumor grafting was tumor (SL2) specific. The second phase from day 12 and onwards was not tumor specific. During the first 4 days after SL2 grafting the DBA/2 mice expressed a specific concomitant immunity to a second tumor graft. Then 7 or more days after grafting the first SL2 tumor, the concomitant immunity was nonspecific as the growth of a second SL2 tumor graft and a L5178Y (DBA/2) tumor graft were inhibited. In addition, the immune suppressive activity of serum and lymphocytes was tested. Neither serum nor lymphocytes from SL2-bearing mice suppressed the macrophage arming capacity of SL2 immune lymphocytes. Lymphocytes from tumor-bearing mice did not inhibit the capacity of SL2-immune lymphocytes to transfer resistance to naive animals. On the contrary, lymphocytes obtained from SL2-bearing mice 14 days after SL2 grafting transfered tumor resistance in a Winn-type assay. These data suggest that the growth of an antigenic tumor is due to the inability of the immune system to mount an effective antitumor effector cell population during tumor growth, rather than an immune suppression of the antitumor reactivity, as a limited immune reactivity could be detected in tumor-bearing mice, whereas immune suppression could not be detected.

Keywords: Antigenic Tumor, Immune Suppression, Tumor Resistance, Naive Animal, Paradoxical Phenomenon

References

  • 1.Askenase PW, Van Loveren H. Delayed-type hypersensitivity: activation of mast cells by antigen specific T cell factors initiates the cascade of cellular interactions. Immunol Today. 1983;4:259. doi: 10.1016/0167-5699(83)90046-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Blazar BA, Galik N, Klein E. Effects of isolated tumor lymphocytes alone and with adherent cells. Cancer Immunol Immunother. 1984;18:179. doi: 10.1007/BF00205509. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.De Heer E, De Groot JW, Den Otter W, Dullens HFJ. Peritoneal cell populations during tumor rejection. Int J Tiss React. 1982;IV:81. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Den Otter W, Evans R, Alexander P. Differentiation of immunologically specific cytotoxic macrophages into two types on the basis of radiosensitivity. Transplantation. 1974;18:421. doi: 10.1097/00007890-197411000-00006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Den Otter W, Dullens HFJ, De Weger RA. Macrophages and anti-tumor reactions. Cancer Immunol Immunother. 1983;16:67. doi: 10.1007/BF00199233. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Den Otter W, Dullens HFJ, Loveren H, Weger RA. Development of immune reaction against tumours. J Pathol. 1984;143:A4. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.De Weger RA, Den Otter W. Induction of specific macrophage cytotoxicity. Methods Enzymol. 1986;132:531. doi: 10.1016/s0076-6879(86)32038-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.De Weger RA, Pels E, Den Otter W. The induction of lymphocytes with the capacity to render macrophages cytotoxic in an allogeneic system. Immunology. 1982;47:541. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.De Weger RA, Runhaar EA, Den Otter W. Cytotoxicity of macrophages and monocytes. Meth Enzymol. 1986;132:458. doi: 10.1016/s0076-6879(86)32031-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Dullens HFJ, Hilgers J, Van Basten CDH, De Weger RA, De Heer E, Den Otter W. Cell surface antigen phenotypes and enzyme expression patterns of two murine T cell lymphomas derived from early and/or mature thymus cells. Leuk Res. 1982;6:425. doi: 10.1016/0145-2126(82)90108-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Evans R, Alexander P. Mechanism of immunologically specific killing of tumor cells by macrophages. Nature. 1972;236:168. doi: 10.1038/236168a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Gorelik E, Segal S, Feldman M. On the mechanism of tumor “concomitant immunity”. Int J Cancer. 1981;27:847. doi: 10.1002/ijc.2910270618. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Julius MH, Simpson E, Herzenberg LA. A rapid method for the isolation of functional thymus derived murine lymphocytes. Eur J Immunol. 1973;3:645. doi: 10.1002/eji.1830031011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Nelson DS, Kearney R. Macrophages and lymphoid tissue in mice with concomitant tumor immunity. Br J Cancer. 1976;34:221. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1976.155. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Nelson M, Nelson DS. Macrophages and resistance to tumours. Influence of agents affecting macrophages and delayed type hypersensitivity on resistance to tumours inducing concomitant immunity. Aust J Exp Biol. 1978;56:211. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Nelson M, Nelson DS. Macrophages and resistance to tumours. I. Inhibition of delayed hypersensitivity reactions by tumour cells and by soluble products affecting macrophages. Immunology. 1978;34:277. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Nepom GT, Hellström I, Hellström KE. Suppressor mechanism in tumor immunity. Experientia. 1983;39:243. doi: 10.1007/BF01955286. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.North RJ, Bursaker I. T cell-mediated suppression of the concomitant anti tumor immune response as an example of transplantation tolerance. Transplant Proc. 1984;XVI:463. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.North RJ, Kirstein DJ, Tuttle RL. Subversion of host defense mechanisms by murine tumors II. Counter influence of concomitant antitumour immunity. J Exp Med. 1976;143:574. doi: 10.1084/jem.143.3.574. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Pels E, Den Otter W. Natural cytotoxic macrophages in the peritoneal cavity of mice. Br J Cancer. 1979;34:856. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1979.276. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Pels E, De Groot JW, Mullink R, Van Unnik JAM, Den Otter W. Identification of two different types of mouse peritoneal exudate cells with ring-shaped nuclei. J Reticuloendothel Soc. 1980;27:367. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Romani L, Nardelli B, Bianchi R, Puccetti P, Mage M, Fioretti MC. Adoptive immunotherapy of intracerebral murine lymphomas: role of different lymphoid populations. Int J Cancer. 1985;35:659. doi: 10.1002/ijc.2910350515. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Scheper RJ, Van Dinther-Janssen ACHM, Polak L. Specific accumulation of hapten reactive T cells in contact sensitivity reaction sites. J Immunol. 1985;134:1333. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Spangrude GJ, Araneo BA, Daynes RA. Site selective homing of antigen primed lymphocyte populations can play a crucial role in the efferent limb of cell-mediated immune response in vivo. J Immunol. 1985;134:2900. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Spector S, Friedman H. Immunosuppressive factors produced by tumors and their effects on the RES. In: Herberman RB, Friedman H, editors. The reticuloendothelial system, vol 5, cancer. New York: Plenum Press; 1983. p. 315. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Ting C-C, Zhang S-R. Studies of the mechanisms for the induction of in vivo tumor immunity. VII Development of specific anti-tumor immunity in progressors and regressors. Int J Cancer. 1983;32:385. doi: 10.1002/ijc.2910320320. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Van Loveren H, Snoek M, Den Otter W. Host macrophage involved in systemic adoptive immunity against tumors. Experientia. 1982;38:488. doi: 10.1007/BF01952654. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Van Loveren H, Den Otter W. Macrophage like cells as research tools in transfer experiments. Immunobiol. 1983;164:23. doi: 10.1016/S0171-2985(83)80014-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Van Loveren H, De Groot JW, Koten JW, Piersma AH, De Weger RA, Den Otter W. A macrophage factor enhancing the systemic anti-tumour effect of T lymphocytes. Immunobiology. 1984;166:118. doi: 10.1016/S0171-2985(84)80031-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Yam LT, Ly CI, Crosby WH. Cytochemical identification of monocytes and granulocytes. Am J Clin Pathol. 1971;55:283. doi: 10.1093/ajcp/55.3.283. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Yamamura Y. Immunologic responses to a murine mammary adenocarcinoma: In vitro production of specific killer cells is dependent on active T lymphocytes. J Immunol. 1978;120:286. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Yamamura Y. Immunological responses to a murine mammary adenocarcinoma. Oncology. 1980;37:6. doi: 10.1159/000225391. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Cancer Immunology, Immunotherapy : CII are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES