Cross-suppression of specific immune responses after oral tolerance

Vaz, Nelson M.; Maia, Luiz C. Sauerbronn; Hanson, David R.; Lynch, J. M.

doi:10.1590/s0074-02761981000100009

Cited by 16 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, we [27][28][29][30] and others [34][35][36] have demonstrated that injection of a tolerated antigen results in inhibition of antibody response to a second unrelated antigen injected simultaneously. We have called this phenomenon indirect effects of the exposure to tolerated proteins.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The proposed mechanisms are sometimes subtractive, such as clonal deletion [18,19] or anergy [16,20,21], and sometimes active, such as idiotypic interactions or T cell suppression mediated by suppressive cytokines [22][23][24][25][26][27]. Regardless of the explanation adopted, it is usually assumed that the tolerance is specific for the orally administered protein.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Indirect Effects of Oral Tolerance Cannot be Ascribed to Bystander Suppression

1997

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Carvalho CR, Verdolin BA, Vaz NM. Indirect Effects of Oral Tolerance Cannot be Ascribed to Bystander Suppression. Scand J Immunol 1997;45:276-281 The addition of tolerated antigens to immunizing doses of unrelated antigens blocks antibody responses to these unrelated antigens. This inhibition, which the authors have called the indirect effects of tolerated antigens, occurs even when the mixture of proteins is injected as soon as 24 h after the oral tolerance induction. The indirect effects also do not require the simultaneous injection of the two proteins: they are still present 72 h after an injection of Ova in Ova tolerant mice, but do not occur if the unrelated protein is injected 24 h before the tolerated protein. In addition, indirect effects do not block secondary responses to unrelated proteins if the primary immunization is made in the absence of the tolerated protein. These results cannot be explained by innocent bystander suppression, which is believed to result from the action of suppressive cytokines released by specific tolerant lymphocytes upon unrelated lymphocytes that would otherwise respond to the second, non-tolerated antigen. Indirect effects may be better understood in terms of network models.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Indirect Effects of Oral Tolerance Cannot be Ascribed to Bystander Suppression

1997

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…7 Oral tolerance induction to autoantigens is one of the possible treatments for Th1-mediated autoimmune diseases such as multiple sclerosis, 8,9 rheumatoid arthritis, 10,11 and type 1 diabetes. 12,13 Antigens administered orally enter the gut-associated lymphoid tissue (GALT), 14,15 which, as a primary function, protects the host from ingested pathogens and proteins. 16,17 Currently, 2 primary effector mechanisms of oral tolerance induction are known.…”

Section: Editorial P 1901 Clinical Perspective P 1976 Receptor (Ldlr)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Induction of Oral Tolerance to Oxidized Low-Density Lipoprotein Ameliorates Atherosclerosis

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background-Oxidation of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and the subsequent processing of oxidized LDL (oxLDL) by macrophages results in activation of specific T cells, which contributes to the development of atherosclerosis. Oral tolerance induction and the subsequent activation of regulatory T cells may be an adequate therapy for the treatment of atherosclerosis. Methods and Results-Tolerance to oxLDL and malondialdehyde-treated LDL (MDA-LDL) was induced in LDL receptor Ϫ/Ϫ mice fed a Western-type diet by oral administration of oxLDL or MDA-LDL before the induction of atherogenesis. Oral tolerance to oxLDL resulted in a significant attenuation of the initiation (30% to 71%; PϽ0.05) and progression (45%; PϽ0.05) of atherogenesis. Tolerance to oxLDL induced a significant increase in CD4 ϩ CD25 ϩ Foxp3

show abstract

“…8 Unexpectedly, parenteral re-exposure to a tolerated antigen was found to block the initiation of immune responses to a second unrelated antigen. [9][10][11] Thus, injection of a tolerated protein into orally tolerant mice inhibits immunological responses to unrelated proteins and block severe chronic inflammatory Gustavo C. Ramos, 1 reactions of immunological origin, such as autoimmune reactions and granulomatous lesions around Schistosoma mansoni eggs. 12 The mechanism proposed to explain this inhibitory effect was called 'bystander supression'.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cell‐mediated immune response to unrelated proteins and unspecific inflammation blocked by orally tolerated proteins

Ramos¹,

Rodrigues²,

Azevedo³

et al. 2009

Immunology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Oral tolerance promotes a generalized decrease in specific immune responsiveness to proteins previously encountered via the oral route. In addition, parenteral immunization with a tolerated protein also triggers a significant reduction in the primary responsiveness to a second unrelated antigen. This is generally explained by 'innocent bystander suppression', suggesting that the transient and episodic effects of inhibitory cytokines released by contact with the tolerated antigen would block responses to the second antigen. In disagreement with this view, we have previously shown that: (i) these inhibitory effects do not require concomitance or contiguity of the injections of the two proteins; (ii) that intravenous or intragastric exposures to the tolerated antigen are not inhibitory; and (iii) that the inhibitory effect, once triggered, persists in the absence of further contact with the tolerated protein, possibly by inhibition of secondary responsiveness (immunological memory). The present work confirms that immunological memory of the second unrelated antigen is hindered by exposure to the tolerated antigen and, in addition, shows that this exposure: (i) inhibits the inflammation triggered by an unrelated antigen through the double effect of inhibiting production of leucocytes in the bone marrow and blocking their migration to inflammed sites; and (ii) significantly blocks footpaw swelling triggered by carrageenan. Taken together, these results conclusively demonstrate that inhibitory effects of parenteral injection of tolerated antigens are much more general than suggested by the 'innocent bystander suppression' hypothesis.

show abstract

Cross-suppression of specific immune responses after oral tolerance

Cited by 16 publications

References 0 publications

Indirect Effects of Oral Tolerance Cannot be Ascribed to Bystander Suppression

Indirect Effects of Oral Tolerance Cannot be Ascribed to Bystander Suppression

Induction of Oral Tolerance to Oxidized Low-Density Lipoprotein Ameliorates Atherosclerosis

Cell‐mediated immune response to unrelated proteins and unspecific inflammation blocked by orally tolerated proteins

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About