Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Commentary
  • Published:

Whatever happened to cell-bound antibodies? On the overriding influence of dogma

Nature Immunology volume 3, pages 105–108 (2002)Cite this article

For over 75 years, only humoral antibodies were known to mediate immunological specificity. The apparent absence of these in delayed-type hypersensitivity reactions was perplexing, and the dominant dogma of antibodies led to some curious hypotheses.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Zinsser, H. Infection and Resistance. p. 443 (Macmillan, New York, 1914).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Weiser, R. S. in Cell-bound Antibodies (Amos, B. & Koprowski, H. eds) p. 72 (Wistar Institute Press, Philadelphia, 1963).

    Google Scholar 

  3. In this paper, my use of the term “cell-bound” antibodies is not meant to include “cytophilic” antibodies. The former were not to be found in the circulation, whereas the latter are circulating antibodies that adhere to cells.

  4. Amos, B. & Koprowski, H. (eds) Cell-bound Antibodies (Wistar Institute Press, Philadelphia, 1963). It is significant that this meeting was convened at the behest of the National Academy of Science's Committee on Tissue Transplantation.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Behring, E. & Kitasato, S. Deutsch. med. Wochenschr. 16, 1113–1114 (1890). See also Behring, E. & Wernicke, E. Z. Hyg 12, 10–44 & 45–57 (1892).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Metchnikoff, I. Virchows Archiv. 96, 177–195 (1884). See also Metchnikoff, E. Immunity in the Infectious Diseases (New York, Macmillan, 1905). Reprinted by Johnson Reprints, New York (1968).

    Google Scholar 

  7. For a discussion of the cellularist-humoralist debate, see Silverstein, A.M. Cell. Immunol. 48, 208–221 (1979).

  8. Ehrlich, P. Klin. Jahrb. 6, 299–333 (1897). See also Ehrlich, P. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 66, 424–448 (1900).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Kuhn, T. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd edn (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1970).

    Google Scholar 

  10. But see Silverstein, A. M. & Rose, N. R. Seminars Immunol. 12, 173–178 (2000).

  11. Dienes, L. & Schoenheit, E. W. Am. Rev. Tuberc. 20, 92–105 (1929). Dienes, L. J. Immunol. 17, 531–538 (1929).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Freund, J. & McDermott, K. Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med. 49, 548–553 (1942).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Landsteiner, K. The Specificity of Serological Reactions (Dover, New York, 1962).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Arnold Rich comments at length on the disparity between the degree of tuberculin hypersensitivity, immunity to tuberculosis and the titer of circulating antibodies in infected individuals in Rich, A. The Pathogenesis of Tuberculosis, pp. 509–613 (Charles Thomas, Springfield, IL, 1944).

  15. See Medawar's summary of his work in Medawar, P. B. Harvey Lect. 52, 144–176 (1956–1957). Medawar would soon abandon antibodies as the effectors in allograft rejection, see Medawar, P. B. in Cellular and Humoral Aspects of Hypersensitivity (Lawrence, H. S. ed.) p. 504–529 (New York, Hoeber-Harper, 1959), but Peter Gorer persisted in this belief, see Brent, L. A History of Transplantation p. 74 (Academic Press, New York, 1997).

  16. Landsteiner, K. & Chase, M. W. Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med. 49, 688–690 (1942).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Chase, M. W. Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med. 59, 134–135 (1945).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Lawrence, H. S. J. Clin. Invest. 34, 219–230 (1955).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Mitchison, N. A. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 142, 72–87 (1954). Billingham R. E., Brent, L. & Medawar, P. B. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 143, 58–80 (1954).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Weaver, J. M., Algire, G. H. & Prehn, R. T. J. Nat. Cancesr Inst. 15, 1737–1767 (1955).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Very early on the significance of these cytological differences was pointed out in Dienes, L. & Mallory T. Amer. J. Pathol. 8, 689–709 (1932). It was more forcefully pointed out in Gell, P. G. H. & Hinde, I. T. Brit. J. Exp. Path. 32, 516–529 (1951); Int. Arch. Allergy 5, 23–46 (1954); and Waksman, B. H. Int. Arch. Allergy Appl. Immunol. 14, 10 Suppl. (1959).

  22. Zinsser, H. Infection and Resistance. p. 366 (Macmillan, New York, 1914).

  23. Rich, A. R. & Follis, R. H. Jr Bull. Johns Hopkins Hosp. 66, 106–122 (1940).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Rich, A. R. & Lewis, M. R. Bull. Johns Hopkins Hosp. 50, 115–131 (1932). They thought that the antigen killed the target macrophages specifically, but see Waksman, B. H. & Matoltsy, M. J. Immunol. 81, 220–234 (1958).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Bloom, B. R. & Bennett, B. Science 153, 80–82 (1966). David, J. R. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 56, 72–77 (1966).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Rich, A. The Pathogenesis of Tuberculosis, p. 404 (Charles Thomas, Springfield, IL, 1944).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Bruton, O. C. Pediatrics 9, 722–728 (1952).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Good, R. A. & Zak, S. J. Pediatrics 18, 109–116(1956). Janeway, C. A. & Gitlin, D. Adv. Pediat. 9, 65–83 (1957).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. See Good, R.A. et al. in Mechanisms of Hypersensitivity (Shaffer, J. H. et al. eds) pp. 467–476 (Little Brown, Boston, 1959).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Nezelof, C. et al. Arch. Franç. Pediat. 21, 897–920 (1964). DiGeorge, A. M. J. Pediat. 67, 907 (1965).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Glanzmann, E. & Riniker, P. Ann. Paediat. Basel 175, 1–32 (1950).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Glick, B., Chang, T. S. & Jaap, R. G. Poultry Sci. 35, 224–225 (1956).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Miller, J. F. A. P. Lancet ii, 748–749 (1961). Similar results were published independently in Jankovic, B. D., Waksman, B. H. & Arnason, B. G. J. Exp. Med. 159–176 (1962) and Good, R. A. et al. J. Exp. Med. 116, 773–796 (1962).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Cooper, M. D. et al. in Immunological Deficiency Diseases of Man (Bergsma, D. & R. A. Good eds) pp. 7–16 (National Foundation, New York, 1967).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Claman, H. N., Chaperon, E. A. & Triplett, R. F. Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med. 122, 1167–1171(1966). See also Claman, H. N. & Chaperon, E. A. Transplant. Rev. 1, 92–113 (1969).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. I recall having heard this at a meeting in the early 1970s, I think by Felix Haurowitz. I later asked him about it and, although he did not remember it specifically, admitted that he might well have said it.

  37. Rich, A. The Pathogenesis of Tuberculosis (Charles Thomas, Springfield, IL, 1944). Rich, A. R. Harvey Lectures 42, 106–147 (1946–47).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Gell, P. G. H. & Hinde, I. T. Int. Arch. Allergy Appl. Immunol. 5, 23–46 (1954). See also Turk, J. L. Delayed Hypersensitivity (North Holland, Amsterdam, 1967).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Benacerraf, B. & Gell, P. G. H. Immunology 2, 53–63 (1959). See also Salvin, S. B. J. Exp. Med. 107, 109–124 (1958).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Pappenheimer, A. M. Jr, Scharff, M. & Uhr, J. W. in Mechanisms of Hypersensitivity (Shaffer, J. H. et al. eds) pp. 417–434 (Little Brown, Boston, 1959). See also Gell, P. G. H. & Benacerraf, B. Adv. Immunol. 1, 319–343 (1961).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Gell, P. G. H. & Benacerraf, B. Immunology 2, 64–70 (1959). Such cross-reactions are not seen in reactions involving circulating antibodies.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Benacerraf & Gell, note 39. See also Turk, J. L. Delayed Hypersensitivity (North Holland, Amsterdam, 1967); Salvin, S. F. & Smith, R. F. J. Exp. Med. 111, 465–483 (1960); Benacerraf, B. & Levine, B. B. J. Exp. Med. 115, 1023–1035 (1962); and Gell, P. G. H. & Silverstein, A. M. J. Exp. Med. 115, 1037–1051 (1962).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Silverstein, A. M. & Gell, P. G. H. J. Exp. Med. 115, 1053–1064 (1962).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. See, for example, Pressman, D. P. & Grossberg, A. The Structural Basis of Antibody Specificity (Benjamin, New York, 1968) and Kabat, E. A. Structural Concepts in Immunology and Immunochemistry (Rinehart & Winston, New York, 1968).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Karush, F. & Eisen, H. N. Science 136, 1032–1039 (1962).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Borek, F., Silverstein, A. M. & Gell, P. G. H. Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med. 114, 266–270 (1963).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Uhr, J. W. & Pappenheimer, A. M. J. Exp. Med. 108, 891–904 (1958). See also Silverstein, A. M. & Borek, F. J. Immunol. 96, 953–959 (1966).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Marrack, P. & Kappler, D. Adv. Immunol. 38, 1–30 (1986).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Marchalonis, J. J., Atwell, J. L. & Cone, R.E. Nature New Biol. 235, 240–242 (1972). Cone, R. E. & Marchalonis, J. J. Biochem. J. 1430, 345–354 (1974).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. See Vitteta, E. S. et al. J. Exp. Med. 136, 81–93 (1972) and Vitteta, E. S. et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 70, 834–838 (1973).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Feldmann, M. & Nossal, G. J. V. Transplant. Rev. 13, 3–34 (1972), see p. 4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Mitchison, N. A. in Immunological Tolerance (M. Landy & W. Braun eds) pp. 115 (Academic Press, New York, 1969); see also note 36.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Zinkernagel, R. M. & Doherty, P. C. Nature 248, 701–702 (1974). Zinkernagel, R. M. & Doherty, P. C. Adv. Immunol. 27, 51–177 (1979).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Silverstein, A. M. Nature Immunol. 2, 279–281 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of the History of Medicine, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, 1900 East Monument St., Baltimore, 21205, MD, USA

    Arthur M. Silverstein

Authors
  1. Arthur M. Silverstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Silverstein, A. Whatever happened to cell-bound antibodies? On the overriding influence of dogma. Nat Immunol 3, 105–108 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1038/ni0202-105

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ni0202-105

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing