Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Infection and Immunity logoLink to Infection and Immunity
. 1979 Nov;26(2):554–562. doi: 10.1128/iai.26.2.554-562.1979

Suppression of In Vitro Lymphocyte Transformation During an Experimental Dermatophyte Infection

Frederick Green III 1, Edward Balish 1
PMCID: PMC414652  PMID: 546787

Abstract

During primary Trichophyton mentagrophytes infection of strain 2 guinea pigs, the colony-forming units (CFU) of fungi present within the lesion peaked between days 7 and 14, whereas the severity of the lesion itself peaked between days 11 and 16. Concomitant with the latter peak, a pronounced depression in the in vitro mitogenic activity of spleen cells (SPC) and lymph node cells (LNC) was observed. Only after resolution of the primary infection (day 21) did LNC show increased deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) synthesis in the presence of fungal antigens. During cutaneous reinfection, there was no distinct peak fungal load and CFU appeared to decrease steadily during the accelerated course of a reinfection disease. LNC from guinea pigs with severe, ulcerated reinfection lesions generally exhibited a heightened response to fungal antigen in vitro. LNC from guinea pigs with mild reinfection dermatophytosis had depressed in vitro reactivity to mitogens and dermatophyte antigen. The suppression of blastogenic activity during dermatophyte infection appeared to be associated with autologous serum components, since increased DNA synthesis resulted when SPC or LNC were cultured with fetal calf serum. The depressed in vitro DNA synthesis of lymphocytes (cultured with dermatophyte antigens) that were harvested during reinfection was not accompanied by an impaired ability of infected guinea pigs to respond with a delayed-type hypersensitivity skin test in vivo. These results support the hypothesis that experimental T. mentagrophytes dermatophytosis is a cell-mediated hypersensitivity disease that can be modified by immunosuppressive control mechanisms elaborated or induced by the fungus.

Full text

PDF
554

Selected References

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

  1. Asherson G. L., Zembala M. Suppressor T cells in cell-mediated immunity. Br Med Bull. 1976 May;32(2):158–164. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.bmb.a071349. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. CRUICKSHANK C. N., TROTTER M. D., WOOD S. R. Studies on tricophytin sensitivity. J Invest Dermatol. 1960 Oct;35:219–223. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Carlisle D. H., Inouye J. C., King R. D., Jones H. E. Significance of serum fungal inhibitory factor in dermatophytosis. J Invest Dermatol. 1974 Aug;63(2):239–241. doi: 10.1111/1523-1747.ep12680020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. DESAI S. C., BHAT M. L. Studies on experimental infections with T. rubrum in humans and the mechanism of griseofulvin effect. J Invest Dermatol. 1960 Nov;35:297–303. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Greenberg J. H., King R. D., Krebs S., Field R. A quantitative dermatophyte infection model in the guinea pig--a parallel to the quantitated human infection model. J Invest Dermatol. 1976 Dec;67(6):704–708. doi: 10.1111/1523-1747.ep12598588. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. KLIGMAN A. M. Tinea capitis due to M. audouini and M. canis. II. Dynamics of the host-parasite relationship. AMA Arch Derm. 1955 Mar;71(3):313–337. doi: 10.1001/archderm.1955.01540270025004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Kerbs S., Greenberg J., Jesrani K. Temporal correlation of lymphocyte blastogenesis, skin test responses and erythema during dermatophyte infections. Clin Exp Immunol. 1977 Mar;27(3):526–530. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. LOWRY O. H., ROSEBROUGH N. J., FARR A. L., RANDALL R. J. Protein measurement with the Folin phenol reagent. J Biol Chem. 1951 Nov;193(1):265–275. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Neta R., Salvin S. B. T and B lymphocytes in the regulation of delayed hypersensitivity. J Immunol. 1976 Nov;117(5 PT2):2014–2020. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Ottaviano P. J., Jones H. E., Jaeger J., King R. D., Bibel D. Trichophytin extraction: biological comparison of trichophytin extracted from Trichophyton mentagrophytes grown in a complex medium and a defined medium. Appl Microbiol. 1974 Aug;28(2):271–275. doi: 10.1128/am.28.2.271-275.1974. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. SULZBERGER M. B. Immunologic changes brought about by fungi and fungous products. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1949 Dec 26;50(ART):767–772. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1949.tb39881.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Stobo J. D., Loehnen C. P. Immunoregulation and autoimmunity. Mayo Clin Proc. 1976 Aug;51(8):479–483. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Tagami H., Watanabe S., Ofuji S., Minami K. Trichophytin contact sensitivity in patients with dermatophytosis. Arch Dermatol. 1977 Oct;113(10):1409–1414. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Tagami H., Watanabe S., Ofuji S. Trichophytin contact sensitivity in guinea pigs with experimental dermatophytosis induced by a new inoculation method. J Invest Dermatol. 1973 Oct;61(4):237–241. doi: 10.1111/1523-1747.ep12676490. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Turk J. L., Polak L., Parker D. Control mechanisms in delayed-type hypersensitivity. Br Med Bull. 1976 May;32(2):165–170. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.bmb.a071350. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Walters B. A., Chick J. E., Halliday W. J. Cell-mediated immunity and serum blocking factors in patients with chronic dermatophytic infections. Int Arch Allergy Appl Immunol. 1974;46(6):849–857. doi: 10.1159/000231187. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Infection and Immunity are provided here courtesy of American Society for Microbiology (ASM)

RESOURCES