Sensitivity of H–2-less target cells and role of H–2 in T-cell-mediated cytolysis

Abstract

THERE is no definitive teleological interpretation of the involvement of H–2 determinants in the recognition by mouse cytolytic T cells of various non-H–2 antigens1,2. While it is generally believed that T-cell immunity against non-H–2 structures (determined, for example, by infectious agents) may benefit from the known special reactivity of T cells against non-self H–2, other interpretations have been proposed, such as the possibility that H–2 is necessary for cytolysis at a postrecognition stage as the “weak point” of the target-cell surface3. A prediction of this hypothesis is that target cells devoid of H–2 should be resistant to T-cell-mediated cytolysis. We have tested this prediction using male germinal cells, embryonal carcinoma and virus-transformed testicular cells as targets, in the presence of the lectin concanavalin A (con A). Con A binding apparently by-passes4 the normal recognition system, so that lack of recognition of H–2 on H–2-less target cells would not be a limiting factor for cytolysis. We found that H–2-less embryonal carcinoma cell lines, including one with barely detectable levels of F9 antigen, were sensitive to lysis, strongly suggesting that at a postrecognition stage H–2 is not required for T-cell-mediated cytolysis.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1

    Shearer, G. M., Eur. J. Immun., 4, 527–533 (1974).

  2. 2

    Zinkernagel, R. M., and Doherty, P. C., Nature, 248, 701–702 (1974).

  3. 3

    Forman, J., J. exp. Med., 142, 403–418 (1975).

  4. 4

    Forman, J., and Möller, G., J. exp. Med., 138, 672–685 (1973).

  5. 5

    Vojtiskova, M., and Pokorna, Z., Folia Biol., 18, 1–9 (1972).

  6. 6

    Fellous, M., Erikson, R., Dubois, P., and Gachelin, G., Folia Biol. (in the press).

  7. 7

    Artzt, K., and Jacob, F., Transplantation, 17, 633–634 (1974).

  8. 8

    Forman, J., and Vitetta, E. S., Proc. natn. Acad. Sci. U.S.A, 72, 3661–3665 (1975).

  9. 9

    Artzt, K., et al., Proc. natn. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 70, 2988–2992 (1973).

  10. 10

    Artzt, K., and Bennett, D., Nature, 256, 545–547 (1975).

  11. 11

    Nicolas, J. F., Avner, P., Gaillard, J., Jacob, H., and Jacob, F., Cancer Res. (in the press).

  12. 12

    Bevan, M. J., and Cohn, M., J. Immun., 114, 559–565 (1975).

  13. 13

    Bonavida, B., and Bradley, T. P., Transplantation, 21, 94–102 (1976).

  14. 14

    Röllinghoff, M., Pfizenmeier, K., Trostmann, H., and Wagner, H., Eur. J. Immun., 5, 560–564 (1975).

  15. 15

    Golstein, P., and Smith, E. T., Contemp. Topics Immunobiol., 7 (in the press).

  16. 16

    Hammerberg, C., and Klein, J., Nature, 258, 296–299 (1975).

  17. 17

    Mayer, M. M., Proc. natn. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 69, 2954–2958 (1972).

  18. 18

    Golstein, P., Nature, 252, 81–83 (1974).

Download references

Author information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Further reading

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.