Immune response in vitro. II. Suppression of the immune response in vitro by specific antibody

The Relationship Between Humoral and Cell‐Mediated Immunity

“…There is ample experimental evidence which indicates that passively administered antibody can suppress antibody formation both in vivo (Uhr & Moller 1968) and in vitro (Land et al, 1969, Pierce 1969, Feldmann & Diener 1970. In contrast, the effect of passive antibody on cell-mediated immunity to soluble antigens has been relatively neglected, although there have been numerous reports that passive antibody can readily suppress the induction of cell-mediated immunity against tissue ^afts (i.e-, produce immunological enhancement) (Kaliss 1958, Snell et al 1960, Moller & Moller 1966, Uhr & Moller 1968).…”

“…Probably the most direct evidence that macrophage cytophilic antibody may play an immunoregulatory role was published by Ivanyi (1970), who demonstrated that a passive antiserum lost its immunosuppressive activity after removal of macrophage cytophilic antibody by repeated absorption with spleen cells-Furthermore, Sinclair et al (1970) found that the removal of the Fc fragment from antibody drastically reduced its inhibitory effect, although others have not observed such a reduction in inhibitory activity (Tao & Uhr 1966, Cerottini et al 1969. Less direct evidence is supplied by several workers who observed that pre-exposure of spleen cells to antibody can markedly suppress the subsequent antibody response to sheep erythrocytes (Rowley & Fitch 1964, Pierce 1969, although there have been reports that pretreatment of lymphocytes with antibody failed to impair subsequent antibody responsiveness (Moller 1964, Uhr & Moller 1968). This apparent inconsistency in the literature can probably be explained by the fact that the immunoregulatory properties of macrophage cytophilic antibody are highly dependent upon the type of antigen used (Liew & Parish 1972b,c).…”

Tolerance, Enhancement and the Regulation of Interactions Between T Cells, B Cells and Macrophages

“…The suggestion has been made that in certain systems, antibody-mediated suppression requires an involvement of adherent cells (Pierce 1969, Haughton & Nash 1970. Moreover, other in vivo experiments have shown that IgM antibody can enhance the early immune response of mice to suboptimal concentrations of antigen (Henry & Jerne 1968, Dennert, Pohlit & Rajewsky 1970.…”

REGULATION OF THE IMMUNE RESPONSE BY IgM ANTIBODY: A PARADOXICAL SUPPRESSION OF THE IN VITRO PRIMARY IMMUNE RESPONSE TO SHEEP ERYTHROCYTES BY PASSIVE IgM.

“…The IgM preparations used in this study had a suppressant effect at direct hacmagglutination titres of the order of 10"^ to 10~-while the IgG preparations were still suppressive at titres of the order of lO""^. Pierce (1969) and Feldmann and Diener (1970), using hyperimmune sera, have reported suppres-sion of the in vitro response to 40-and 100-fold greater dose.s of erythrocytes with theoretical titres of 10"-and 10"^ respectively. The early IgG antibody used in the present study therefore seems to be less efficient in suppression than late antibody of presumably higher affinity, confirming in vivo observations (Fitikelstein and Uhr, 1964).…”

“…As Henry and Jerne (196S) have shown that late high-affinity IgG antibody, on an approximately equimolar basis, abolished IgM-dependent enhancement, it was neeessary to exclude contaminating IgG antilmdy as the cause of the observed suppression. The suppressant eflFects of hyperimmune anti-SRG serum on t)ie in vitro response have been reported l)y many workers (Pierce, 1969;Lang, Nase and Rajewsky, 1969;Felchnann and Diener, 1970). However, there are no reports of the activity of early and presumably low-affinity IgG which eould be pre.sent in these IgM preparations, albeit in \i'ry small ([uantities. Similar experiments were therefore performed, using a preparation of IgG separated from sera taken on the 6th day of the immune response to SRG.…”