Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Clinical and Experimental Immunology logoLink to Clinical and Experimental Immunology
. 1973 Jun;14(2):293–308.

Antilymphocyte serum. An investigation into the decay phenomenon

Mary Ponsford
PMCID: PMC1553791  PMID: 4146222

Abstract

Two series of rabbit anti-mouse thymocyte sera (RAMTS) were prepared by sequential immunization. To prepare Series I five weekly immunizations were given followed, after an interval of 3 months, by three further weekly immunizations. In the preparation of Series II RAMTS sixteen weekly immunizations were given. Animals were bled 7 days after each immunization.

The immunosuppressive potency of each antiserum was assessed by its ability to prolong the survival of C57B1 skin grafts made to groups of CBA mice. The potency of both series of RAMTS declined after the third immunization. The decline in potency of Series II RAMTS was paralleled by a fall in leucoagglutinin and opsonin titres. A fall in antileucocyte activity concomitant with a decline in potency was not observed with Series I antisera.

The administration of Series I seven-pulse RAMTS together with the three-pulse material significantly reduced the potency of the latter. In contrast later sera of Series II were without effect on the potency of earlier sera.

It is suggested that, in Series I, further immunization after an interval of 3 months led to the development of antibodies which inhibited the action of immunosuppressive antibodies. In Series II, where immunization was continuous, the `decay' was probably due to the absorption of immunosuppressive antibodies by the injected thymocytes.

Full text

PDF
293

Selected References

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

  1. BENACERRAF B., GELL P. G. Studies on hypersensitivity. I. Delayed and Arthustype skin reactivity to protein conjugates in guinea pigs. Immunology. 1959 Jan;2(1):53–63. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bach J. F., Dardenne M., Dormont J., Antoine B. A new in vitro test evaluating anti-lymphocyte serum potency. Transplant Proc. 1969 Mar;1(1):403–407. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Barth R. F., Carroll G. F. Immunosuppressive effects of antilymphocyte serum in complement-deficient mice: evidence that immune cytolysis is not essential for ALS activity. J Immunol. 1970 Feb;104(2):522–524. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Dixon F. J., Jacot-Guillarmod H., McConahey P. J. The effect of passively administered antibody on antibody synthesis. J Exp Med. 1967 Jun 1;125(6):1119–1135. doi: 10.1084/jem.125.6.1119. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. EISEN H. N., SISKIND G. W. VARIATIONS IN AFFINITIES OF ANTIBODIES DURING THE IMMUNE RESPONSE. Biochemistry. 1964 Jul;3:996–1008. doi: 10.1021/bi00895a027. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Gozzo J. J., Wood M. L., Monaco A. P. Use of minimal doses of lymphoid cells for production of heterologous antilymphocyte serum. Transplant Proc. 1971 Mar;3(1):779–783. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Greaves M. F., Tursi A., Playfair J. H., Torrigiani G., Zamir R., Roitt I. M. Immunosuppressive potency and in-vitro activity of antilymphocyte globulin. Lancet. 1969 Jan 11;1(7585):68–72. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(69)91089-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Haber E. Immunochemistry. Annu Rev Biochem. 1968;37:497–520. doi: 10.1146/annurev.bi.37.070168.002433. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. James K., James V. S., Pullar D. M., Wood A., Logan E. In vitro studies on the heterogeneity of equine antibodies to human lymphoid tissue. Immunochemistry. 1969 Sep;6(5):659–680. doi: 10.1016/0019-2791(67)90131-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. James K., Pullar D. M., James V. S., Wood A., Epps H. B., Rahr L. The development and distribution of antilymphocytic and other antibodies in horses immunized with human lymphoid antigens. Transplantation. 1970 Sep;10(3):208–226. doi: 10.1097/00007890-197009000-00002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Johnston S. L., Allen P. Z. Equine antibodies to human gamma-G-globulin. 3. Immunochemical behavior and specificity of gamma-2- and gamma-1-antibody fractions isolated from equine antisera to human gamma-G-globulin. J Immunol. 1968 May;100(5):955–963. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Jooste S. V., Lance E. M., Levey R. H., Medawar P. B., Ruszkiewicz M., Sharman R., Taub R. N. Notes on the preparation and assay of anti-lymphocytic serum for use in mice. Immunology. 1968 Nov;15(5):697–705. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Judd K. P., Bryant C. J., Trentin J. J. Organ specificity of antithymocyte globulin. Clin Exp Immunol. 1971 Oct;9(4):499–506. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Klinman N. R., Rockey J. H., Frauenberger G., Karush F. Equine anti-hapten antibody. 3. The comparative properties of gamma G- and gammaA-antibodies. J Immunol. 1966 Apr;96(4):587–595. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Levey R. H., Medawar P. B. Nature and mode of action of antilymphocytic antiserum. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1966 Oct;56(4):1130–1137. doi: 10.1073/pnas.56.4.1130. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Lueker D. C., Tribble J. L. Increased activity of antithymus serum after absorption with splenic lymphocytes. Nature. 1969 Feb 15;221(5181):682–685. doi: 10.1038/221682a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. MOLLER G. Studies on the mechanism of immunological enhancement of tumor homografts. I. Specificity of immunological enhancement. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1963 Jun;30:1153–1175. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Martin W. J. Assay for the immunosuppressive capacity of antilymphocyte serum. I. Evidence for opsonization. J Immunol. 1969 Nov;103(5):979–989. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Martin W. J. Assay for the immunosuppressive capacity of antilymphocyte serum. II. Nature and specificity of opsonizing antibody. J Immunol. 1969 Nov;103(5):990–999. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Martin W. J., Miller J. F. Assay for the immunosuppressive capacity of antilymphocyte serum based on its action on thymus-derived cells. Int Arch Allergy Appl Immunol. 1969;35(2):163–178. doi: 10.1159/000230169. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. McGuigan J. E., Simms E. S., Eisen H. N. Differences in amino acid composition of rabbit gamma G-antibodies of the same specificity. Biochemistry. 1968 May;7(5):1929–1934. doi: 10.1021/bi00845a042. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Perper R. J., Monovich R. E., Van Gorder T. J. Analysis of the biological activity of antilymphocyte serum. 3. Concentration of immunosuppressive activity in one IgG subfraction and its inhibition by another. Immunology. 1971 Dec;21(6):883–902. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Ponsford F. M., Symes M. O. Studies on the decline in immunosuppressive potency of rabbit anti-mouse thymocyte sera raised by repeated immunization of the same rabbit. Folia Biol (Praha) 1971;17(4):227–235. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Sutthiwan P., Shorter R. G., Hallenbeck G. A., Elveback L. R. Comparison of rabbit antimouse thymus sera produced after different numbers of injections of lymphoid cells. Transplantation. 1969 Sep;8(3):249–257. doi: 10.1097/00007890-196909000-00006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. UHR J. W., BAUMANN J. B. Antibody formation. I. The suppression of antibody formation by passively administered antibody. J Exp Med. 1961 May 1;113:935–957. doi: 10.1084/jem.113.5.935. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Webster R. G. The immune response to influenza virus. 3. Changes in the avidity and specificity of early IgM and IgG antibodies. Immunology. 1968 Jan;14(1):39–52. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

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

RESOURCES