1973
DOI: 10.1159/000231083
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Some Effects of Oral Administration of Oxazolone to Mice

Abstract: Oral administration of the contact sensitizer oxazolone to normal mice produced tolerance rather than skin sensitivity. Under certain conditions, oral dosing of skin-sensitized mice produced a temporary depression in the response to skin challenge. Oral or rectal challenge of skin-sensitized mice failed to elicit an allergic reaction in the intestinal mucosa. The results are discussed in relation to the hypothesis that the lymphoid cell population in the intestinal epithelium is involved in cell-mediated immun… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

1982
1982
2011
2011

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Contrary to this, systemic tolerance rather than sensitivity has been reported to occur as a result of priming at mucosal membranes (Tomasi, 1980). Thus, oral ingestion of haptens or soluble proteins resulted in a state of systemic (skin) DTH hyporesponsiveness (Chase, 1946;Glaister, 1973;Asherson et al, 1977;Richman et al, 1978). Others have reported that under certain conditions oral administration of haptens can give rise to effective contact sensitivity elicitable at skin sites (Asherson et al, 1977).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Contrary to this, systemic tolerance rather than sensitivity has been reported to occur as a result of priming at mucosal membranes (Tomasi, 1980). Thus, oral ingestion of haptens or soluble proteins resulted in a state of systemic (skin) DTH hyporesponsiveness (Chase, 1946;Glaister, 1973;Asherson et al, 1977;Richman et al, 1978). Others have reported that under certain conditions oral administration of haptens can give rise to effective contact sensitivity elicitable at skin sites (Asherson et al, 1977).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In comparison to conventionally housed animals, GF animals have decreased plasma cells and IgA, decreased expression of activation markers on intestinal macrophages, decreased MHCII on epithelial cells, decreased nitric oxide, and histamine levels in the small intestine (Gordon, 1959; Beaver and Wostmann, 1962; Glaister, 1973; Moreau et al, 1978; Matsumoto et al, 1992; Mikkelsen et al, 2004; Sobko et al, 2004; Smith et al, 2007). Peyer’s patch follicles are reduced in number and size and the mesenteric lymph nodes are smaller, less cellular, and do not have germinal centers in GF animals (Gordon, 1959; Glaister, 1973). However, reconstitution of GF mice with an intestinal microflora is sufficient to restore the mucosal immune system (Umesaki et al, 1995).…”
Section: Functional Relevance Of the Microbiotamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On this basis, it seemed possible that administration of other haptenating agents per rectum to mice might elicit a different type of colitis. An additional reason for exploring the colitogenic potential of a second haptenating agent arises from the fact that the feeding of a haptenating agent, as alluded to above, results in antigen nonspecific suppressor T cell responses which could potentially mediate bystander suppres-sion of a colitis induced by an unrelated haptenating reagent (6,7,(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23). Thus, the identification of a second colitogenic haptenating reagent would allow one to test the possibility that the feeding of a haptenating agent could nonspecifically suppress (treat) colitis occurring in humans.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%