The Role of Lymphocytes in the Destruction of Homografts

Jl, Gowans

doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.bmb.a070376

Cited by 83 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The hybrid host is theoretically genetically tolerant of the donor component, and in fact no immune response against parental lymphoid cells, analogous to that observed by Cudkowicz and Stimpffing in certain mice (16), can be demonstrated in these rats (9). The situation here appears similar to that demonstrated in the transfer reaction in rabbits and hamsters (5,10), in experimental allergic uveitis (17), in skin allograft rejection, and in certain lesions of classical delayed hypersensitivity (see reviews; 14,18,19). In each of these cases the mononuclear cell infiltrate has been fcund to consist largely of non-specific cells, and the specificity of these reactions has therefore usually been attributed to the activities of a certain minority of specifically sensitized cells which may recruit or instruct the former component (18,19).…”

Section: Inhibition Of the Gvttr By Ttostsupporting

confidence: 80%

“…This explanation seems unlikely for Gowans has reported the sensitization of lymphocytes as a consequence of their perfusion through an isolated allogeneic kidney (14), and Wilson has employed rat kidney cells as antigenic targets for isoimmune lymphoid cells in vitro (15). Assuming the kidney is effective as antigen, it is difficult to imagine why the requirement for host mononuclears should be a continuing one, unless they serve some function other than as antigen.…”

Section: Inhibition Of the Gvttr By Ttostmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Interaction of Donor and Host Lymphoid Cells in the Pathogenesis of Renal Cortical Destruction Induced by a Local Graft Versus Host Reaction

Elkins¹

1966

The Journal of Experimental Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The graft versus host reaction (GVHR), which results from the injection of parental strain spleen cells beneath the kidney capsule of F1 hybrid rats, is transferable during its developmental phase into F1 hybrid hosts isogeneic with the primary host, but not into secondary hosts of the parental (donor) strain. Furthermore, the GVHR propagates but rarely in secondary hybrid hosts which are allogeneic with respect to the primary hosts, but which are also genetically tolerant of donor-type cells. These findings indicate that the donor cells not only initiate the GVHR but also maintain it by virtue of immunologically specific activity. Whole-body irradiation of (LBf)F1 and (LBN)F1 hosts 24 hours prior to the injection of parental (L) spleen cells results in inhibition of the subsequent GVHR to a degree commensurate with the radiation damage sustained by the lymphoid system of the host. Furthermore, propagation of transferred GVHRs did not occur if susceptible secondary hybrid hosts had been previously irradiated. These findings indicate that radiosensitive host cells play a continuing and essential role in the pathogenesis of the invasive-destructive lesion. It is concluded that the development of this lesion depends upon the continuous interaction of the specifically reactive donor-type cells with an immunologically non-specific population of host mononuclears.

show abstract

Section: Inhibition Of the Gvttr By Ttostsupporting

confidence: 80%

Section: Inhibition Of the Gvttr By Ttostmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Interaction of Donor and Host Lymphoid Cells in the Pathogenesis of Renal Cortical Destruction Induced by a Local Graft Versus Host Reaction

Elkins¹

1966

The Journal of Experimental Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The cells which make up the infiltrate seen in these cases of choriocarcinomalymphocytes, macrophages and plasma cells-are recognized as having a role in cell mediated immune mechanisms such as delayed hypersensitivity reactions (Waksman, 1960) and solid allograft rejection (Gowans, 1965). The presence of such cells, which include many with pyroninophilic cytoplasm, termed " immunoblasts " by Dameshek (1963) and Mellors (1966) (Beer, Billingham and Yang, 1972).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cellular Reaction in Trophoblastic Tumours

Elston¹,

Bagshawe²

1973

Br J Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary.-The presence of a mononuclear cell reaction to 41 gestational choriocarcinomata, 10 invasive moles and 13 malignant trophoblastic teratomata has been investigated. The intensity of the reaction was graded; there was a significantly better response to therapy and survival rate in those with a " severe " cellular reaction than in those with a " mild " reaction to gestational choriocarcinoma. The pathological and clinical features of invasive moles showed no relationship with the cellular reaction to the tumour. The cellular reaction to trophoblastic teratomata was generally poor but there was a marked cellular reaction to the tumour of one patient who has enjoyed a sustained remission.The relationship of cellular reaction and response to treatment with other histological and clinical features was examined. With the exception of a positive correlation between the degree of vascular invasion and response to treatment, none was found.It is suggested that an infiltrate of mononuclear cells in gestational choriocarcinoma is probably a response to the presence of tumour antigens. The infiltrate favourably affects the response to chemotherapeutic agents, suggesting that it contributes to tumour cell death and it may be interpreted as an immunological response directed at tumour rejection.

show abstract

“…The separation of delayed-type from immediate-type immune re actions became more apparent upon the discovery by Coons, Leduc and Connally (1955) that the plasma cell was responsible for antibody forma tion, while the small lymphocyte was implicated in reactions of homograft immunity (Gowans, McGregor and Cohen, 1963) and the graft-versus-host reaction (Heldemann, Linscott, and Marlino, 1962). Immune impairment similar to that seen in neonatally thymectomized ani mals resulted from removal of the thymus followed by letahal irradiation and bone marrow reconstitution (M iller, Doak, and Cross, 1963).…”

Section: Lymphoid Cellsmentioning

confidence: 99%