1977
DOI: 10.4269/ajtmh.1977.26.187
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Lymphocyte-Macrophage Interaction during Control of Intracellular Parasitism *

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
13
0

Year Published

1980
1980
1983
1983

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…TIVITY. In contrast to the preceding lymphokine experiments, cocultivation with HIB and toxoplasma lymphokine for 18 h before infection renders normal macrophages as effective as IM cells in inhibiting parasite multiplication (13). HIB alone has no effect.…”
Section: Role Of Oxygen Intermediates In Lymphokine Hib-induced Antitmentioning
confidence: 75%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…TIVITY. In contrast to the preceding lymphokine experiments, cocultivation with HIB and toxoplasma lymphokine for 18 h before infection renders normal macrophages as effective as IM cells in inhibiting parasite multiplication (13). HIB alone has no effect.…”
Section: Role Of Oxygen Intermediates In Lymphokine Hib-induced Antitmentioning
confidence: 75%
“…The molecular basis underlying the synergistic action of HIB and lymphokines has not been investigated, but may be related to the presence of endotoxin (36). Thus, in this system, HIB can be replaced by endotoxin (13), as well as THIO (13) or PP, and BCG and Con A supernates can substitute for toxoplasma lymphokine (H. Murray. Unpublished observations).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, pretreatment ofmacrophages with our lymphokine preparations fails to elicit leishmanicidal activity of these phagocytes, in contrast to the action of antitrypanosome (24) and antitoxoplasma (18) lymphokines. Furthermore, the activity ofour lymphokine preparations is unaffected by prior treatment of macrophages with trypsin or neuraminidase, whereas these treatments are known to abolish the activities of other antiparasite lymphokines (17,18). This suggests that the mode ofaction of lymphokine-mediated leishmanicidal activity in our system may be independent of lymphocyte mediator-macrophage receptor interactions.…”
mentioning
confidence: 59%
“…Continuous treatment ofinfected macrophages by the lymphokines for at least 3 days or more is required in our system for the manifestation ofleishmanicidal activity. This is somewhat analogous to the action of lymphokines on mycobacteria in mouse macrophages (21) but differs from that of all the other antiparasitic lymphokines, which produce a more drastic effect in less than 3 days against other protozoa including cutaneous leishmanias (11,12,18,19,(22)(23)(24). Moreover, pretreatment ofmacrophages with our lymphokine preparations fails to elicit leishmanicidal activity of these phagocytes, in contrast to the action of antitrypanosome (24) and antitoxoplasma (18) lymphokines.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Macrophages have a decreased rate of pinocytosis [18] rather than increased as within elicited cells, and they demonstrate primarily toxoplasmastatic properties. The initiation of this toxoplasmastatic response in macrophages is associated with changes in cyclic nucleotides in the cell and it is blocked by corticosteroids as well as inhibitors of protein synthesis [20]. They do not show increase in lysosome-phagosome fusion [19].…”
Section: Correlates Of the Immune Response Duringtoxoplasmosismentioning
confidence: 98%