Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Clinical and Experimental Immunology logoLink to Clinical and Experimental Immunology
. 1988 Dec;74(3):489–493.

The use of an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay to study the disposition of sheep digoxin-specific immunoglobulin G and Fab fragments in the rat.

P C Johnston 1, I H Stevenson 1, D S Hewick 1
PMCID: PMC1542035  PMID: 3233793

Abstract

An enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay was developed for the measurement of sheep digoxin-specific immunoglobulin G and Fab fragments. With the latter, two preparations were examined, one available commercially (Digibind, Wellcome) and one prepared by ourselves (DSFab). The assay exhibited a greater sensitivity towards immunoglobulin G compared with Digibind and DSFab, presumably because the Fab preparations lacked some of the sheep-specific antigens present on the whole antibody molecule. The assay was used subsequently to examine the disposition of the antibody preparations after injection of 1 mg/kg i.v. into anaesthetised bile duct-cannulated rats. The plasma distribution half-lives (1.8-3.3 min) were similar for all three preparations, but while plasma elimination half-life values for Digibind and DSFab were much the same (110-115 min), that for immunoglobulin G was longer (425 min). The shorter half-life values for Fab fragments were linked to a rate of urinary elimination 10-20 fold faster. No antibody excretion in the bile was detected. The apparent volume of distribution of immunoglobulin G was 35 ml/kg, indicating that the whole antibody was largely confined to the plasma space. The volume of distribution for Digibind or DSFab (about 46 ml/kg) was not significantly larger than that for immunoglobulin G and much smaller than the extracellular fluid volume, which was measured as 305 ml/kg. Thus the distribution of sheep Fab fragments in the rat markedly differs from that in the baboon (Smith et al., 1979) where the apparent volume of distribution approximates to the extracellular fluid volume.

Full text

PDF
489

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Bianchi M., Bellini G., Hessan H., Kim K. E., Swartz C., Fernandes M. Body fluid volumes in the spontaneously hypertensive rat. Clin Sci (Lond) 1981 Dec;61(6):685–691. doi: 10.1042/cs0610685. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Brown R. D., Manno J. E. ESTRIP, a BASIC computer program for obtaining initial polyexponential parameter estimates. J Pharm Sci. 1978 Dec;67(12):1687–1691. doi: 10.1002/jps.2600671214. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Butler V. P., Jr, Schmidt D. H., Smith T. W., Haber E., Raynor B. D., Demartini P. Effects of sheep digoxin-specific antibodies and their Fab fragments on digoxin pharmacokinetics in dogs. J Clin Invest. 1977 Feb;59(2):345–359. doi: 10.1172/JCI108647. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Curd J., Smith T. W., Jaton J. C., Haber E. The isolation of digoxin-specific antibody and its use in reversing the effects of digoxin. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1971 Oct;68(10):2401–2406. doi: 10.1073/pnas.68.10.2401. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Goodlin R. C. Antidigoxin antibodies in eclampsia. N Engl J Med. 1988 Feb 25;318(8):518–519. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198802253180815. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Hunter M. M., Margolies M. N., Ju A., Haber E. High-affinity monoclonal antibodies to the cardiac glycoside, digoxin. J Immunol. 1982 Sep;129(3):1165–1172. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Johnston P. C., Stevenson I. H., Hewick D. S. The influence of digoxin-specific antibody fragments on digoxin disposition in the rat. Biochem Pharmacol. 1987 Jul 1;36(13):2215–2220. doi: 10.1016/0006-2952(87)90153-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Laemmli U. K. Cleavage of structural proteins during the assembly of the head of bacteriophage T4. Nature. 1970 Aug 15;227(5259):680–685. doi: 10.1038/227680a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Lloyd B. L., Smith T. W. Contrasting rates of reversal of digoxin toxicity by digoxin-specific IgG and Fab fragments. Circulation. 1978 Aug;58(2):280–283. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.58.2.280. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Schaumann W., Kaufmann B., Neubert P., Smolarz A. Kinetics of the Fab fragments of digoxin antibodies and of bound digoxin in patients with severe digoxin intoxication. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1986;30(5):527–533. doi: 10.1007/BF00542410. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Smith T. W., Butler V. P., Jr, Haber E. Characterization of antibodies of high affinity and specificity for the digitalis glycoside digoxin. Biochemistry. 1970 Jan 20;9(2):331–337. doi: 10.1021/bi00804a020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Smith T. W., Lloyd B. L., Spicer N., Haber E. Immunogenicity and kinetics of distribution and elimination of sheep digoxin-specific IgG and Fab fragments in the rabbit and baboon. Clin Exp Immunol. 1979 Jun;36(3):384–396. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Steinbuch M., Audran R. The isolation of IgG from mammalian sera with the aid of caprylic acid. Arch Biochem Biophys. 1969 Nov;134(2):279–284. doi: 10.1016/0003-9861(69)90285-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Wenger T. L., Butler V. P., Jr, Haber E., Smith T. W. Treatment of 63 severely digitalis-toxic patients with digoxin-specific antibody fragments. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1985 May;5(5 Suppl A):118A–123A. doi: 10.1016/s0735-1097(85)80471-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Wochner R. D., Strober W., Waldmann T. A. The role of the kidney in the catabolism of Bence Jones proteins and immunoglobulin fragments. J Exp Med. 1967 Aug 1;126(2):207–221. doi: 10.1084/jem.126.2.207. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Clinical and Experimental Immunology are provided here courtesy of British Society for Immunology

RESOURCES