Skip to main content
PMC home page
The Journal of Experimental Medicine logoLink to The Journal of Experimental Medicine
. 1981 May 1;153(5):1044–1057. doi: 10.1084/jem.153.5.1044

Cells mediating graft rejection in the mouse. I. Lyt-1 cells mediate skin graft rejection

PMCID: PMC2186155  PMID: 7019377

Abstract

The Ly phenotype of cells mediating skin graft rejection was determined using monoclonal anti-Lyt-1.1 and Lyt-2.1 antibodies in CBA mice that received CBA lymphoid cells from mice sensitized to C57BL/6; i.e., alloantigenic differences arising from the H-2 and non-H-2 loci. It was clear that graft rejection was due wholly to the presence of Lyt-1 cells in the inoculum and that Lyt-123 or Lyt-23 cells had no effect. Furthermore, no synergism was noted between Lyt-1 and Lyt-2 cells. In this model, both the cytotoxic T cell and cytotoxic lymphocyte precursors were shown to be Lyt-123 and these could be depleted from sensitized Lyt-1 populations that mediated graft rejection. Thus cytotoxic T cells are not responsible for skin graft rejection, but rather, this is mediated by an Lyt-1 cell. Whether this T cell is distinct from other Lyt-1 cells (T helper, T cells mediating delayed hypersensitivity) is not clear at present, but other evidence, and traditional concepts, link graft rejection and delayed type hypersensitivity as being different manifestations of the same mechanism.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (887.2 KB).

Selected References

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

  1. Ascher N. L., Ferguson R. M., Hoffman R., Simmons R. L. Partial characterization of cytotoxic cells infiltrating sponge matrix allografts. Transplantation. 1979 Apr;27(4):254–259. doi: 10.1097/00007890-197904000-00010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. BRENT L., BROWN J., MEDAWAR P. B. Skin transplantation immunity in relation to hypersensitivity. Lancet. 1958 Sep 13;2(7046):561–564. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(58)90202-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bach F. H., Alter B. J. Alternative pathways of T lymphocyte activation. J Exp Med. 1978 Sep 1;148(3):829–834. doi: 10.1084/jem.148.3.829. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Beverley P. C., Woody J., Dunkley M., Feldmann M., McKenzie I. Separation of suppressor and killer T cells by surgace phenotype. Nature. 1976 Aug 5;262(5568):495–497. doi: 10.1038/262495a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bhan A. K., Reinisch C. L., Levey R. H., McCluskey R. T., Schlossman S. F. T-cell migration into allografts. J Exp Med. 1975 May 1;141(5):1210–1215. doi: 10.1084/jem.141.5.1210. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Brunner K. T., Mauel J., Rudolf H., Chapuis B. Studies of allograft immunity in mice. I. Induction, development and in vitro assay of cellular immunity. Immunology. 1970 Apr;18(4):501–515. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Cantor H., Boyse E. A. Functional subclasses of T lymphocytes bearing different Ly antigens. II. Cooperation between subclasses of Ly+ cells in the generation of killer activity. J Exp Med. 1975 Jun 1;141(6):1390–1399. doi: 10.1084/jem.141.6.1390. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Ceredig R. Frequency of alloreactive cytotoxic T cell precursors in the mouse thymus and spleen during ontogeny. Transplantation. 1979 Nov;28(5):377–381. doi: 10.1097/00007890-197911000-00006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Chang A. E., Sugarbaker P. H. Preferential homing of passively transferred T cells into skin allografts of mice. Transplantation. 1979 Sep;28(3):247–252. doi: 10.1097/00007890-197909000-00018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Cunningham A. J., Szenberg A. Further improvements in the plaque technique for detecting single antibody-forming cells. Immunology. 1968 Apr;14(4):599–600. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Gately M. K., Mayer M. M. Purification and characterization of lymphokines: an approach to the study of molecular mechanisms of cell-mediated immunity. Prog Allergy. 1978;25:106–162. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Hogarth P. M., Potter T. A., Cornell F. N., McLachlan R., McKenzie I. F. Monoclonal antibodies to murine cell surface antigens. I. Lyt-1.1. J Immunol. 1980 Oct;125(4):1618–1624. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Häyry P., Andersson L. C., Nordling S., Virolainen M. Allograft response in vitro. Transplant Rev. 1972;12:91–140. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-065x.1972.tb00054.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Liew F. Y., Simpson E. Delayed-type hypersensitivity responses to H-Y: characterization and mapping of Ir genes. Immunogenetics. 1980;11(3):255–266. doi: 10.1007/BF01567792. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. MILLER J. F. Studies on mouse leukaemia. The role of the thymus in leukaemogenesis by cell-free leukaemic filtrates. Br J Cancer. 1960 Mar;14:93–98. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1960.11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. McDougal J. S., Shen F. W., Elster P. Generation of T helper cells in vitro. V. Antigen-specific Ly1+ T cells mediate the helper effect and induce feedback suppression. J Immunol. 1979 Feb;122(2):437–442. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. McKenzie I. F., Potter T. Murine lymphocyte surface antigens. Adv Immunol. 1979;27:179–338. doi: 10.1016/s0065-2776(08)60263-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Miller R. G., Teh H. S., Harley E., Phillips R. A. Quantitative studies of the activation of cytotoxic lymphocyte precursor cells. Immunol Rev. 1977;35:38–58. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-065x.1977.tb00234.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Nakayama E., Shiku H., Stockert E., Oettgen H. F., Old L. J. Cytotoxic T cells: Lyt phenotype and blocking of killing activity by Lyt antisera. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1979 Apr;76(4):1977–1981. doi: 10.1073/pnas.76.4.1977. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Okada M., Klimpel G. R., Kuppers R. C., Henney C. S. The differentiation of cytotoxic T cells in vitro. I. Amplifying factor(s) in the primary response is Lyt 1 + cell dependent. J Immunol. 1979 Jun;122(6):2527–2533. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Parish C. R., McKenzie I. F. A sensitive rosetting method for detecting subpopulations of lymphocytes which react with alloantisera. J Immunol Methods. 1978;20:173–183. doi: 10.1016/0022-1759(78)90254-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Rolley R. T., Sterioff S., Parks L. C., Williams G. M. Delayed cutaneous hypersensitivity and human renal allotransplantation. Transplant Proc. 1977 Mar;9(1):81–83. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Sandrin M. S., Potter T. A., Morgan G. M., McKenzie I. F. Detection of mouse alloantibodies by rosetting with protein A-coated sheep red blood cells. Transplantation. 1978 Aug;26(2):126–130. doi: 10.1097/00007890-197808000-00013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Sprent J., Miller J. F. Fate of H2-activated T lymphocytes in syngeneic hosts. II. Residence in recirculating lymphocyte pool and capacity to migrate to allografts. Cell Immunol. 1976 Feb;21(2):303–313. doi: 10.1016/0008-8749(76)90058-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Wagner H., Röllinghoff M., Nossal G. J. T-cell-mediated immune responses induced in vitro: a probe for allograft and tumor immunity. Transplant Rev. 1973;17(0):3–36. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-065x.1973.tb00122.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Wiktorowicz K., Roberts P. J., Häyry P. Effector mechanisms in allograft rejection. IV. In contrast to late cytotoxic cells, and early killer cells infiltrating mouse sponge matrix allografts are predominantly T lymphocytes. Cell Immunol. 1978 Jul;38(2):255–263. doi: 10.1016/0008-8749(78)90056-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

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

RESOURCES