Premium
Expression of the Major Histocompatibility Complex Antigens on Different Liver Cellular Components in Rat and Man
Author(s) -
LAUTENSCHLAGER I.,
HÄYRY P
Publication year - 1981
Publication title -
scandinavian journal of immunology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.934
H-Index - 88
eISSN - 1365-3083
pISSN - 0300-9475
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-3083.1981.tb00582.x
Subject(s) - biology , antigen , major histocompatibility complex , antiserum , histocompatibility , microbiology and biotechnology , immunology , human leukocyte antigen
We hint analysed the distribution of the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) antigens on different liver cellular components in rat and man. Two types of antisera were used: monospecific rabbit antisera raised against isolated molecules of class I and class II and ordinary hyperimmune alloantisera directed to their allelic specificities. A modified Staphylococcus aureus rosette test, enabling morphological identification of the rosette‐forming cell type, was used. In both species the passenger cells, especially the Kupffer cells, reacted strongly with rabbit anti‐class I and II The passenger erythrocytes reacted with anti‐class I in rat but not in man. Human liver vascular endothelial and bile duct cells displayed a distinct reaction with anti‐class I and II, whereas the hepatocytes reacted very weakly, if at all. In rat liver parenchymal component the expression of these antigens was different and weaker. Rat bile duct cells reacted with anti‐class I and II in approximately 50% of the testings, whereas rat vascular endothelial cells and rat hepatocytes were essential non‐reactive. The alloantiserum reactivity (tested only in the rat) followed closely that of heterologous antisera, and the reactivity of anti‐β 2 m that of class I alloantisera. Although these differences are probably quantitative rather than qualitative, the results suggest considerable variation in the expression of the MHC antigens on different liver cellular components. These differences partially explain why liver allografts behave differently than, e.g., renal allografts upon transplantation.