The Rejection of Skin Homografts in the Normal Human Subject. Part I. Clinical Observations*

Marshall, David C.; Friedman, Eli A.; Goldstein, Donald P.; Henry, L.; Merrill, John P.

doi:10.1172/jci104495

Cited by 31 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The studies of Little (13), Snell (14,15), Gorer (16,17), Hauschka (18), and Medawar (19) have shown a direct correlation between the survival time of tissue homotransplants and genetically controlled histocompatibility determinants. The recent studies of Marshall, Friedman, Goldstein, Henry, Merrill, and Dammin (20,21) have shown close similarities to exist between the morphologic events leading to homograft rejection in man and in experimental animals. With the possible exception, however, of some studies of the behavior of skin homografts in identical twins (22, 23) and in closely related individuals (6), there has been a paucity of data bearing directly on the role of individual specificity in human skin homograft reactions (24).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Cross-Reactions to Skin Homografts in Man*

Rapaport¹,

Lawrence²,

Thomas³

et al. 1962

J. Clin. Invest.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A considerable array of evidence has been secured to suggest that the tempo and intensity of the host's immune response to tissue transplants are conditioned by the degree of histocompatibility existing between the individuals studied (1-4). Although this subject has received a great deal of attention in animal species, it has not been studied extensively in man (5-7).The present report is concerned with the inflenice of genetic disparity upon the fate of skin homografts in man. The results of a 9-year study of 147 skin homografts performed in a group of unrelated normal subjects are presented and discussed in the light of observed variations in the individual specificity of the rejection reaction. MATERIALS AND METHODSSelection of skin homograft donors and recipients. The subj ects were students and house officers of the Third and Fourth Medical and Surgical Divisions (New York University) at Bellevue Hospital, New York. The donors were individuals known not to transmit serum hepatitis on the basis of their previous record of skin or blood donations at Bellevue Hospital.Technique of grafting and of graft observation. The skin specimens were removed from the donors under 1 per cent procaine local anesthesia, and anchored to the host bed with 5-0 interrupted nylon sutures. The grafts were full-thickness specimens 11 mm in diameter. They were placed on the anterior surface of the forearm of the recipient. Pressure dressings were applied and changed 2 days later.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Cross-Reactions to Skin Homografts in Man*

Rapaport¹,

Lawrence²,

Thomas³

et al. 1962

J. Clin. Invest.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The most obvious difference between them is the presence of a large number of eosinophils in a retest reaction. It is known that eosinophils can infiltrate tissues in a variety of situations such as the site of antigen injection (Litt 1960 a, b) and its draining lymph nodes (McNeil 1948, Litt 1963, around grafts showing accelerated rejection (Rogers, Converse, Taylor & Campbell 1953;Marshall, Friedman, Goldstein, Henry & Merrill 1962) around tissue parasites (Zaiman, Scardino, Berson & Stern 1963) and in certain autoimmune diseases such as experimental autoimmune thyroiditis (Cohen, Rose & Brown 1974).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The nature of retest reaction in delayed hypersensitivity. I. Light microscopic changes in the skin of the eyelid

1979

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The retest reaction is a variant of delayed hypersensitivity where in repeated application of an antigen at the same site leads to an intense eosinophil leucocytic infiltration. This reaction has been produced experimentally for the first time in the eyelids of rabbits and guinea-pigs and it is possible that such a mechanism is implicated in a variety of clinical ocular conditions in which IgE does not appear to feature. It was also found that tissue reaction was modified in the absence of suppressor cells, these having been temporarily inhibited by pretreatment of the animals with cyclophosphamide.

show abstract

“…The grafts were inspected daily by two or more observers beginning on the sixth day, and the onset of rejection of each graft was determined grossly by the appearance of edema in the graft. Erythema was not used as a major criterion in accordance with the findings of Marshall and associates (20,21). Biopsies were taken of all grafts a day or two after the first appearance of gross evidence of rejection in any one of them.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The application of the normal lymphocyte transfer reaction to histocompatibility testing in man.

Carpenter¹,

Glassock²,

Gleason³

et al. 1966

J. Clin. Invest.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent advances in human kidney transplantation have brought the need for a more careful analysis and understanding of histocompatibility in man. The results of human renal allografting indicate that although parents or siblings are the best donors, grafts from unrelated donors occasionally survive for prolonged periods (1), presumably due to chance compatibility. A means for measuring histocompatibility in man is, therefore, needed. To this end, a number of experimental approaches have been proposed, namely leukoagglutination (2-4) and lymphocytotoxic serotyping (5, 6) of tissue antigens; interaction of allogeneic lymphocytes in vitro (7-9); cross reactions in skin transplantation, the so-called third man test ( 10); skin reactions produced by lymphocytes in irradiated hamsters (11); and the normal lymphocyte transfer reaction (NLT). This latter phenomenon, described by Brent and Medawar (12) in the guinea pig, is a result of the transfer of viable peripheral blood lymphocytes from one individual to an intradermal site in another individual. The immunologically competent cells are presumably able to react in a graft vs. host fashion against the histocompatibility antigens in the dermis of the cell recipient, forming a reaction that is expressed as an inflammatory nodule in the skin, reaching its peak approximately 48 hours after inoculation. In the guinea pig the intensity of the reaction was shown to cor-

show abstract

The Rejection of Skin Homografts in the Normal Human Subject. Part I. Clinical Observations*

Cited by 31 publications

References 25 publications

Cross-Reactions to Skin Homografts in Man*

Cross-Reactions to Skin Homografts in Man*

The nature of retest reaction in delayed hypersensitivity. I. Light microscopic changes in the skin of the eyelid

The application of the normal lymphocyte transfer reaction to histocompatibility testing in man.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About