Protection Against Guinea Pig Hepatomas by Pretreatment With Subcelluar Fractions of Mycobacterium bovis (BCG)2

Minden, Percy; Wainberg, Mark A.; Weiss, David

doi:10.1093/jnci/52.5.1643

Cited by 22 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This raises the question whether the various substrains of guinea-pigs used in this research are isogenic with respect to one another, and more importantly, whether they may differ from the transplantable Line 10 hepatoma in terms of histocompatibility antigen make-up. Indeed, should histocompatibility differences exist, then at least part of the tumour rejection phenomenon which both we (Minden, et al, 1974b;Wainberg et al, 1976) and others (Zbar and Tanaka, 1971;Zbar, Bernstein and Rapp, 1971) have observed may be due to homograft rather than tumour immunity. If this is the case, however, it is nonetheless obvious that the histocompatibility differences must be minor, since tumour inoculation in the absence of immunoprophylaxis or immunotherapy has been invariably fatal for the animals we have studied.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 76%

“…Tumour-cell suspensions for intradermal (i.d.) challenge were prepared immediately before use, as described previously (Minden et al, 1974b) and adjusted to a concentration of 107 hepatoma cells/ml of Hanks' balanced salt solution (BSS). Animals were injected i.d.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This tumour was originally induced at the National Institute of Health (NIH), Bethesda, Md., by the carcinogen diethylnitrosamine, and has been shown to be susceptible to immunoprophylaxis when Strain 2 animals of breeding colonies other than that of the NIH are employed (Minden, Wainberg and Weiss, 1974b;Zbar et al, 1976). Previous studies from our laboratory with Strain 2 guinea-pigs obtained from the Weizmann Institute of Science (WI), Rehovot, Israel, indicated that pretreatment with either MER or another sub-cellular fraction of BCG designated BCG-SS (Minden and Farr, 1969), at times as much as 58 days prior to tumour cell implantation, protected over 400o of guinea-pigs injected with tumour cells from subsequent progressive disease (Minden et al, 1974b). We now report that animals which receive MER immunoprophylactically develop antitumour immunity both more rapidly and at higher levels than do non-MER-treated tumour-bearing controls.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Leukaemogenic action of phorbol in intact and thymectomized mice of different strains

Armuth¹

1976

Br J Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary.-The immunoprophylactic effects of the methanol extraction residue (MER) of BCG were investigated in Strain 2 guinea-pigs injected with cells of the transplantable, diethylnitrosamine-induced, Line 10 hepatocarcinoma. Pretreatment with MER at times ranging from 18 to 182 days prior to tumour implantation protected approximately 40o% of guinea-pigs from progressive neoplastic disease.In addition, MER-treated animals developed specific cell-mediated anti-tumour immunity both more rapidly and at higher levels than did non-MER -treated tumourbearing controls. It was not possible, however, to prognosticate from the results of such laboratory studies to the outcome of immunoprophylaxis.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 76%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Leukaemogenic action of phorbol in intact and thymectomized mice of different strains

Armuth¹

1976

Br J Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is not surprising, therefore, that MER has indeed shown itself to be a significantly effective agent for the prophylaxis and treatment of a number of different malignant diseases in experimental animals and man [5,10,20,32,38,39,42,47,49,50,53,55,57,58,64,66,68,70,71] and that it is therapeutically efficacious especially when administered in combined treatment schedules with irradiation and chemotherapy [9,70]. It is not surprising, therefore, that MER has indeed shown itself to be a significantly effective agent for the prophylaxis and treatment of a number of different malignant diseases in experimental animals and man [5,10,20,32,38,39,42,47,49,50,53,55,57,58,64,66,68,70,71] and that it is therapeutically efficacious especially when administered in combined treatment schedules with irradiation and chemotherapy [9,70].…”

Section: Possibilitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The questionable immunogenicity of certain neoplasms

Weiss¹

1977

Cancer Immunol Immunother

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The possibilities of immunolog&al intervention in neoplastic diseases are discussed in light of the accumulating findings that many spontaneously arising tumors of animals are not immunogenic in the host of origin or are not susceptible to immunological attack, and of the doubts as to the existence of tumor-associated antigens for many human neoplasms. Although some spontanous tumors do in fact display immunogenic properties and are subject to cytotox[c immune reactions, there are persuasive arguments for anticipating that a large proportion of naturally appearing malignant growths will be found to lack both immunogenicity and sensitivity to immunological effector mechanisms in the course of the host-tumor association. Even in the case of such tumors, however, significant opportunities for therapy and prophylaxis by extrinsic immunological manipulation remain cogent, as do eventualities of immunodiagnosis. These possibilities are discussed. It is concluded that whereas the simplistic assumptions which for some years set expectations in the field of tumor immunology must now be abandoned, reassessment of the nature of immunological parameters of host-tumor relationships and of the scope of immunological intervention on the basis of the information now available suggests that the immunological approach to the control of cancer continues to be a profitable area of investigation.

show abstract

“…The resulting data indicate that immune stimulants may be protective [24,31,321, may have no effect [27], or may be deleterious [5,17,18,281. While some of these differences may be attributed to the tumor-host systems being studied, within the same system the results are influenced by the dose of immune stimulant [8,26], the route of injection [4, 161, and the time of treatment [2,7, 16,251 with respect to tumor implant or exposure to the carcinogen.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Influence of Dietary Fat and Non-Specific Immunotherapy on Carcinogen-induced Rat Mammary Adenocarcinoma

et al. 1981

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The incidence of mammary adenocarcinoma in Sprague-Dawley female rats, caused by the carcinogen 7,12-dimethylbenz(cw)anthracene, was influenced by the level of dietary fat fed after exposure to carcinogen. Carcinogen was given by stomach tube to SO-dayold rats, and tumors were evaluated when rats were 9 months old. Rats on diets containing 20% unsaturated fat had a tumor incidence of 97%. while rats changed to a low-fat diet (2% unsaturated fat) three or four weeks after exposure to the carcinogen had an incidence of 45%. Some rats on each diet were given two treatments with the methanol extraction residue of Bacillus Calmette-Guerin, either three and five weeks after carcinogen or four and six weeks after carcinogen. Tumor incidence in the treated group and the untreated group was the same when rats were maintained on the high-fat diet, but tumors in the treated group were larger and the disease was more severe by histological criteria. These tumors were more anaplastic and many were extensively infiltrated with lymphocytes compared to the untreated group. Tumor incidence was significantly lower in rats changed to the low-fat diet (45%) than in those on the high-fat diet (97%), and tumor incidence was reduced to 20% when rats changed to the low-fat diet were treated with methanol extraction residue. The treated group had less severe disease than the untreated group on the low-fat diet. Only half the tumor-bearing rats in this group had malignant tumors, and none were invasive. Methanol extraction residue protected most rats on the low-fat diet against mammary adenocarcinoma, and reduced the severity of disease in those rats that did develop tumors. Methanol extraction residue treatment provided no protection, and even increased the severity of disease, in rats on the high-fat diet.

show abstract

Protection Against Guinea Pig Hepatomas by Pretreatment With Subcelluar Fractions of Mycobacterium bovis (BCG)2

Cited by 22 publications

References 0 publications

Leukaemogenic action of phorbol in intact and thymectomized mice of different strains

Leukaemogenic action of phorbol in intact and thymectomized mice of different strains

The questionable immunogenicity of certain neoplasms

The Influence of Dietary Fat and Non-Specific Immunotherapy on Carcinogen-induced Rat Mammary Adenocarcinoma

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About