Skip to main content
NCBI home page
The Journal of Experimental Medicine logoLink to The Journal of Experimental Medicine
. 1973 Jul 1;138(1):103–116. doi: 10.1084/jem.138.1.103

SUPPRESSION OR AUGMENTATION OF THE ANTIHAPTEN RESPONSE IN MICE BY ANTIBODIES OF DIFFERENT SPECIFICITIES

G Haughton 1, O Mäkelä 1
PMCID: PMC2180553  PMID: 4123826

Abstract

We have measured the production by (C57 x CBA)F1 mice of hapten-binding antibody in response to a standard dose of 50 µg of alum-precipitated NIP12-CG and the influence on this response of the prior administration of hyperimmune antisera raised against the homologous conjugate, the carrier globulin alone, the hapten conjugated to a non-cross-reactive carrier (NIP4-OA), or a related hapten (NP) coupled to CG. The homologous antiserum was strongly immunosuppressive; a dose capable of binding about 1% of the administered hapten caused significant suppression. High doses of anticarrier serum caused significant but modest suppression (about 50%); low doses had no effect. High doses of the serum prepared against NIP4-OA suppressed the 19 day response by more than 97%, while 100–1,000 times lower doses caused the response to be elevated to about double the control level. The antibodies responsible for immunosuppression could be removed from this serum, as could the NIP-binding antibodies, by absorption with NIP coupled through ethylenediamine to insoluble Sepharose. The ability of this serum to augment the response was not reduced by such absorption. Augmenting antibodies could be removed by absorption with HOP-BSA-Sepharose. Thus, immunosuppression and augmentation are functions of two different populations of antibody. The former are specific hapten-binding antibodies, the latter seem to be directed against new antigenic determinants created by coupling any of the family of haptens through lysine to protein carriers. In support of this contention, it was observed that rabbit antiserum to NP-CG, after absorption with CG-Sepharose, augmented the response of mice to standard immunization with NIP12-CG. Female mice produced significantly more NIP-binding antibody than did males.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (677.7 KB).

Selected References

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

  1. Andersson B., Wigzell H. Studies on antibody avidity at the cellular level. Effects of immunological paralysis and administered antibody. Eur J Immunol. 1971 Nov;1(5):384–390. doi: 10.1002/eji.1830010516. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Argyris B. F. Role of macrophages in antibody production. Immune response to sheep red blood cells. J Immunol. 1967 Oct;99(4):744–750. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Brownstone A., Mitchison N. A., Pitt-Rivers R. Chemical and serological studies with an iodine-containing synthetic immunological determinant 4-hydroxy-3-iodo-5-nitrophenylacetic acid (NIP) and related compounds. Immunology. 1966 May;10(5):465–479. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. French M. E., Batchelor J. R. Immunological enhancement of rat kidney grafts. Lancet. 1969 Nov 22;2(7630):1103–1106. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(69)90705-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. GORER P. A., KALISS N. The effect of isoantibodies in vivo on three different transplantable neoplasms in mice. Cancer Res. 1959 Sep;19:824–830. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Hatcher V., Mäkelä O. Immunological cross-reactions within a family of related haptens. Immunochemistry. 1972 Nov;9(11):1139–1149. doi: 10.1016/0019-2791(72)90084-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Haughton G., Adams D. O. Specific immunosuppression by minute doses of passive antibody. II. The site of action. J Reticuloendothel Soc. 1970 Apr;7(4):500–517. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Hellström I., Hellström K. E., Evans C. A., Heppner G. H., Pierce G. E., Yang J. P. Serum-mediated protection of neoplastic cells from inhibition by lymphocytes immune to their tumor-specific antigens. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1969 Feb;62(2):362–368. doi: 10.1073/pnas.62.2.362. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Henry C., Jerne N. K. Competition of 19S and 7S antigen receptors in the regulation of the primary immune response. J Exp Med. 1968 Jul 1;128(1):133–152. doi: 10.1084/jem.128.1.133. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Hoffman D. R., Grossberg A. L., Pressman D. Specificity fractionation of antibodies from individual animals against the 3-nitro-4-hydroxy-5-iodophenylacetyl (NIP) determinant. Immunochemistry. 1971 Sep;8(9):769–784. doi: 10.1016/0019-2791(71)90445-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Kappler J. W., Hoffmann M., Dutton R. W. Regulation of the immune response. I. Differential effect of passively administered antibody on the thymus-derived and bone marrow-derived lymphocytes. J Exp Med. 1971 Sep 1;134(3 Pt 1):577–587. doi: 10.1084/jem.134.3.577. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Mitchison N. A. The carrier effect in the secondary response to hapten-protein conjugates. II. Cellular cooperation. Eur J Immunol. 1971 Jan;1(1):18–27. doi: 10.1002/eji.1830010104. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Mosier D. E., Coppleson L. W. A THREE-CELL INTERACTION REQUIRED FOR THE INDUCTION OF THE PRIMARY IMMUNE RESPONSE in vitro. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1968 Oct;61(2):542–547. doi: 10.1073/pnas.61.2.542. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Porath J., Axen R., Ernback S. Chemical coupling of proteins to agarose. Nature. 1967 Sep 30;215(5109):1491–1492. doi: 10.1038/2151491a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Rajewsky K. The carrier effect and cellular cooperation in the induction of antibodies. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1971 Jan 12;176(1045):385–392. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1971.0002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Rubin B. Studies on the induction of antibody synthesis against sulfanilic acid in rabbits. II. Effect of antibodies directed against new antigenic determinants in homologous protein. The impact on the primary immune response. Scand J Immunol. 1972;1(2):125–134. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3083.1972.tb00591.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Rubin B. Studies on the induction of antibody synthesis against sulfanilic acid in rabbits. III. Effect of antibodies directed against new antigenic determinants in homologous protein. The effect in primed or unresponsive rabbits. Scand J Immunol. 1972;1(2):135–141. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3083.1972.tb00592.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Ryder R. J., Schwartz R. S. Immunosuppression by antibody: localization of site of action. J Immunol. 1969 Nov;103(5):970–978. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Stuart F. P., Saitoh T., Fitch F. W., Spargo B. H. Immunologic enhancement of renal allografts in the rat. Surgery. 1968 Jul;64(1):17–24. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Unanue E. R., Askonas B. A. The immune response of mice to antigen in macrophages. Immunology. 1968 Aug;15(2):287–296. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Wagner H., Feldmann M., Boyle W., Schrader J. W. Cell-mediated immune response in vitro. 3. The requirement for macrophages in cytotoxic reactions against cell-bound and subcellular alloantigens. J Exp Med. 1972 Aug 1;136(2):331–343. doi: 10.1084/jem.136.2.331. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

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

RESOURCES