Premium
NON‐SPECIFIC FACTORS CAN INDUCE s‐IgD ON THE INTERMEDIATE, “PRE‐PROGENITOR” B CELLS THAT GIVE ADOPTIVE PRIMARY RESPONSES
Author(s) -
Shortman Ken,
Wilson Anne,
Baker Julie,
Layton Judith
Publication year - 1982
Publication title -
australian journal of experimental biology and medical science
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.999
H-Index - 104
eISSN - 1440-1711
pISSN - 0004-945X
DOI - 10.1038/icb.1982.33
Subject(s) - immunoglobulin d , progenitor cell , immunology , priming (agriculture) , biology , cell division , progenitor , stimulus (psychology) , microbiology and biotechnology , antibody , b cell , cell , stem cell , genetics , psychology , botany , germination , psychotherapist
Summary The intermediate or “pre‐progenitor” B‐cell subpopulation giving primary adoptive responses has been found by this laboratory to be s‐IgD − , whereas other laboratories have reported the progenitors of primary adoptive responses to be s‐IgD + . This difference appears to depend on the recent history of environmental stimuli received by the mice. Deliberate administration of a complex non‐specific stimulus, designed to mimic the effects of infection or certain types of experimental manipulation, shifted “pre‐progenitor” activity from the s‐IgD − compartment to the s‐IgD + compartment within 24 h. Neither horse erythrocytes (HRC) nor lipopolysaccharide (LPS) alone produced a reproducible effect, but the combination of HRC with low doses of LPS produced a marked shift to s‐IgD + activity. Some earlier experiments from this laboratory suggesting a striking effect with HRC alone probably resulted from suspension of HRC in saline contaminated by LPS‐like material. Priming with HRC alone, under conditions which did not induce s‐IgD, nevertheless stimulated the “pre‐progenitors” to enter cell cycle. Three conclusions are drawn: (1) The stimulus for induction of s‐IgD is not identical with the non‐specific stimulus which selectively induces cell division in this intermediate B‐cell subset; (2) the presence of IgD on the surface per se does not prevent the non‐specific activation of these cells into division; (3) the absence of s‐IgD is only a useful marker of the “pre‐progenitor” subset if the mice are maintained under specific pathogen‐free conditions and exogenous stimuli are controlled.