Bordenave G R
Ann Immunol (Paris). 1976 Jun-Jul;127(3-4):375-95.
Rabbits irradiated with 750 rad were reconstituted with different amounts of spleen cells from the same donor previously immunized against Salmonella abortus-equi (S. a. e.). Two limited numbers of spleen cell clones producing anti-S. a. e. antibodies were respectively expressed in two recipients of the smallest amount (5 x 10(6)) of donor spleen cells. We tried to propagate these spleen cell clones in two new sets of irradiated recipients. We prepared antiidiotypic sera with the anti-S. a. e. serum of respectively (1) the initial donor of the cells, (2) the two intermediate recipients in which a restricted number of spleen cell clones were expressed and (3) one rabbit from each of the second two sets of recipients in which it seemed, as judged by the anti-S. a. e. antibody spectrotypes, we succeeded in propagating these spleen cell clones. With these antiidiotypic sera, we looked for the spleen cell donor idiotypes in the anti-S. a. e. serum of the diverse recipients and vice versa. Recipients of 1 x 10(8) or 2.5 x 10(7) spleen cells produced anti-S. a. e. antibodies with a spectrotype as heterogeneous as the spectrotype of antibodies produced by the donor. These antibodies carried the idiotypic pattern of the donor's antibodies, which was revealed by a given antiidiotypic serum, and the donor's allotypic patterns. The two recipients of 5 x 10(6) spleen cells which were used as intermediate spleen cell donors for the two new sets of irradiated rabbits produced antibodies of restricted heterogeneity which carried donor's allotypic patterns but not the idiotypic pattern of the donor's antibodies (revealed by a given antiidiotypic serum). We observed during these two successive spleen cell clone transfers the expression, in the irradiated recipients, of several idiotypes of anti-S. a. e. antibodies which were not detected in the anti-S. a. e. serum of the spleen cell donor and sometimes even not in the anti-S. a. e. serum of the intermediate donor. The antibodies we studied were produced by the donor's spleen cells as they carried donor allotypic patterns and came from bleedings made one week after transfer, a time which is not sufficient for irradiated rabbits used as controls to recover their aptitude to mount an antibody response after the damages caused by the irradiation. Presumably, spleen cell clones which did not produce antibodies in the donor were recruited to produce antibodies during the successive transfers. These spleen cell clones might have been kept silent in the donor by the clonal dominance phenomenon, this dominance being broken or totally changed during the transfers.
用750拉德辐射的兔子，用来自同一供体的不同数量的脾细胞进行重建，该供体先前已针对马流产沙门氏菌（S. a. e.）进行了免疫。分别在接受最少数量（5×10⁶）供体脾细胞的两名受体中表达了两个产生抗S. a. e.抗体的有限数量的脾细胞克隆。我们试图在两组新的受辐射受体中扩增这些脾细胞克隆。我们用分别来自（1）细胞的初始供体、（2）表达有限数量脾细胞克隆的两名中间受体以及（3）两组新受体中的每组一只兔子（根据抗S. a. e.抗体谱型判断，我们成功扩增了这些脾细胞克隆）的抗S. a. e.血清制备了抗独特型血清。用这些抗独特型血清，我们在不同受体的抗S. a. e.血清中寻找脾细胞供体独特型，反之亦然。接受1×10⁸或2.5×10⁷个脾细胞的受体产生的抗S. a. e.抗体的谱型与供体产生的抗体谱型一样具有异质性。这些抗体带有供体抗体的独特型模式，这由特定的抗独特型血清揭示，以及供体的同种异型模式。作为两组新的受辐射兔子的中间脾细胞供体的两名接受5×10⁶个脾细胞的受体产生的抗体具有有限的异质性，它们带有供体的同种异型模式，但不带有供体抗体的独特型模式（由特定的抗独特型血清揭示）。在这两次连续的脾细胞克隆转移过程中，我们观察到在受辐射受体中表达了几种抗S. a. e.抗体的独特型，这些独特型在脾细胞供体的抗S. a. e.血清中未检测到，有时甚至在中间供体的抗S. a. e.血清中也未检测到。我们研究的抗体由供体的脾细胞产生，因为它们带有供体同种异型模式，并且来自转移后一周的采血，这段时间对于用作对照的受辐射兔子来说不足以恢复其在辐射造成损伤后产生抗体反应的能力。据推测，在供体中不产生抗体的脾细胞克隆在连续转移过程中被招募来产生抗体。这些脾细胞克隆在供体中可能因克隆优势现象而保持沉默，这种优势在转移过程中被打破或完全改变。
