Skip to main content
NCBI home page
The Journal of Experimental Medicine logoLink to The Journal of Experimental Medicine
. 1971 Sep 1;134(3):801–814. doi: 10.1084/jem.134.3.801

LYMPHOID CELL DEPENDENCE OF EOSINOPHIL RESPONSE TO ANTIGEN

M P McGarry 1, R S Speirs 1, V K Jenkins 1, J J Trentin 1
PMCID: PMC2139085  PMID: 15776576

Abstract

Quantitative determinations were made of the capacity of isogenic bone marrow, spleen, and thymic cells from primed and/or nonprimed mice to repopulate the hemopoietic tissues and to mount an inflammatory and antibody response to specific antigen (tetanus toxoid) in heavily irradiated and reconstituted recipients. Spleen cells from primed mice but not from normal mice had the capacity to adoptively transfer an anamnestic antitoxin titer in irradiated animals in the absence of transplanted bone marrow cells, and during retarded myeloid regeneration. Spleen cells alone or bone marrow cells alone produced an insignificant and a moderate peritoneal eosinophil response, respectively, to antigen. In the presence of bone marrow cells, normal spleen cells augment the capacity of recipient animals to mount an eosinophil response to antigen. A much greater augmentation occurs in animals reconstituted with splenic or thymic cells from primed animals. The increase in antitoxin titers appears to be independent of the response of eosinophils since: (a) marked accumulation of eosinophils can occur in animals with no measurable humoral antitoxin, and (b) high antitoxin titers can occur in animals which do not have marked eosinophil responses. It is suggested that a thymic-derived or thymic-dependent mononuclear cell population is necessary for optimal eosinophil response to antigen. The neutrophil and mononuclear cell responses to antigen are determined by different mechanisms from those which determine the eosinophil response. These studies together with earlier findings strongly indicate that the eosinophil granulocytes play a role in the immune response to antigen.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (728.8 KB).

Selected References

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

  1. Athanassiades T. J., Speirs R. S. Formation of antigen-induced granulomas containing plasma cells: a light and electron microscopic study. J Reticuloendothel Soc. 1968 Dec;5(6):485–497. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. BOYDEN S. CELLULAR RECOGNITION OF FOREIGN MATTER. Int Rev Exp Pathol. 1963;2:311–356. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Basten A., Beeson P. B. Mechanism of eosinophilia. II. Role of the lymphocyte. J Exp Med. 1970 Jun 1;131(6):1288–1305. doi: 10.1084/jem.131.6.1288. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Basten A., Boyer M. H., Beeson P. B. Mechanism of eosinophilia. I. Factors affecting the eosinophil response of rats to Trichinella spiralis. J Exp Med. 1970 Jun 1;131(6):1271–1287. doi: 10.1084/jem.131.6.1271. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Blau J. N., Gaugas J. M. Parathymic lymph nodes in rats and mice. Immunology. 1968 May;14(5):763–765. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Claman H. N., Chaperon E. A., Triplett R. F. Thymus-marrow cell combinations. Synergism in antibody production. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1966 Aug-Sep;122(4):1167–1171. doi: 10.3181/00379727-122-31353. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Cohen S. G., Kostage S. T., Rizzo A. P. Experimental eosinophilia. IX. Effects of immunosuppressive agents on eosinophil cell responses. J Allergy. 1967 Mar;39(3):129–138. doi: 10.1016/0021-8707(67)90029-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. DUNN T. B. Normal and pathologic anatomy of the reticular tissue in laboratory mice, with a classification and discussion of neoplasms. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1954 Jun;14(6):1281–1433. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Hilgard H. R. Synergism of thymus and bone marrow in the production of gra a5hilgard HR: Synergism of thymus and bone marrow in the production of graft-versus-host splenomegaly in x-irradiated hosts. J Exp Med. 1970 Aug 1;132(2):317–328. doi: 10.1084/jem.132.2.317. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Keller H. U., Sorkin E. Studies on chemotaxis. 13. Differences in the chemotactic responses of neutrophil and eosinophil polymorphonuclear leucocytes. Int Arch Allergy Appl Immunol. 1969;35(3):279–287. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. LITT M. STUDIES IN EXPERIMENTAL EOSINOPHILIA. VI. UPTAKE OF IMMUNE COMPLEXES BY EOSINOPHILS. J Cell Biol. 1964 Nov;23:355–361. doi: 10.1083/jcb.23.2.355. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. McCulloch E. A., Till J. E. The sensitivity of cells from normal mouse bone marrow to gamma radiation in vitro and in vivo. Radiat Res. 1962 Jun;16:822–832. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. SPEIRS R. S. EFFECT OF X-IRRADIATION ON THE CELLULAR AND HUMORAL RESPONSES TO ANTIGEN. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1964 Mar 31;114:424–441. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1964.tb53595.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. SPEIRS R. S., OSADA Y. Chemotactic activity and phagocytosis of eosinophils. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1962 Apr;109:929–932. doi: 10.3181/00379727-109-27381. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Sulitzeanu D. Affinity of antigen for white cells and its relation to the induction of antibody formation. Bacteriol Rev. 1968 Dec;32(4 Pt 2):404–424. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Ward P. A. Chemotaxis of human eosinophils. Am J Pathol. 1969 Jan;54(1):121–128. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The Journal of Experimental Medicine are provided here courtesy of The Rockefeller University Press

RESOURCES