The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Cutaneous basophil responses and immune resistance of guinea pigs to ticks: passive transfer with peritoneal exudate cells or serum.
Abstract
Resistance to infestation by larval Amblyomma americanum or Rhipicephalus sanguineus ticks was transferred to naive guinea pigs with peritoneal exudate cells (PEC) or serum from donors immunized by prior infestation with homologous tick larvae. In the A. americanum system, PEC transfer induced 87% tick rejection, which was similar to the level of resistance in actively sensitized hosts. In the R. sanguineus system, PEC conferred resistance (39% rejection) that was weaker than in actively sensitized hosts (57% rejection). In both systems, immune serum conferred significant but weaker resistance (20 to 29% rejection). In actively sensitized hosts, resistance to each tick species was specific, but there was considerable cross-reactive resistance. Basophils dominated the 24-hr challenge feeding sites of A. americanum ticks in actively sensitized hosts (69% of the infiltrate) and recipients of sensitized PEC (69%). Mononuclear cells were dominant (69% of the infiltrate) in the challenged tissues of immune serum recipients that had a significant but weaker cutaneous basophil response (24%). Mononuclear cells also dominated (58% of the infiltrate) the 24-hr challenge feeding sites of R. sanguineus ticks in actively sensitized hosts, but there were also 24% basophils. These studies demonstrate that immune resistance to tick is dependent on sensitized lymphoid cells or serum components, and that sensitized cells or serum can transfer a cutaneous basophil response that is associated with immune resistance. Rejection of ticks is usually associated with large basophil infiltrates, but sometimes mononuclear cells are dominant. Thus, immune resistance of guinea pigs to ticks is a heterogeneous response in which immune cells and serum probably act to recruit diverse effector leukocytes to mediate rejection that is specific but significantly cross-reactive.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“It was known that when guinea pigs subjected to a single round of exposure to the feeding of larval A. americanum ticks are challenged with a second exposure to the larval ticks about a month later, tick feeding success is markedly diminished, and such acquired resistance can be transferred by administering serum from sensitized to naïve guinea pigs [49].”
From Mast cells and IgE in defense against lethality of venoms: Possible “benefit” of allergy (2020) · cites this paper as [49]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Control of adaptive immunity by the innate immune system
Iwasaki, A., & Medzhitov, R. (2015) · Nature Immunology · doi:10.1038/ni.3123 · Cited by 2,160
Mast cells and IgE in defense against venoms: Possible “good side” of allergy?
Galli, S. J., Starkl, P., Marichal, T., & Tsai, M. (2016) · Allergology International · doi:10.1016/j.alit.2015.09.002 · Cited by 73
Mast cells and IgE in defense against lethality of venoms: Possible “benefit” of allergy
Galli, S. J., Metz, M., Starkl, P., Marichal, T., & Tsai, M. (2020) · Allergo Journal International · doi:10.1007/s40629-020-00118-6 · Cited by 57
Metadata
- Authors
- Brown, S. J., & Askenase, P. W.
- Venue
- The Journal of Immunology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1981-11-01
- Volume
- 127
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 2163-2167
- ISSN
- 0022-1767
- 1550-6606
- Cited by
- 62
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review