Effect of endocrine manipulation on graft rejection

Immune competence (as determined by xenograft rejection) was measured following classical endocrine ablation and replacement procedures in the adult rat. Graft rejection, expressed as initial rejection time, was not changed by thyroidectomy, adrenalectomy, or hypophysectomy, either with or without a...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inImmunological communications Vol. 5; no. 3; p. 163
Main Author Bilder, G E
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published United States 1976
Subjects
Adrenalectomy
Animals
Castration
Corticosterone - pharmacology
Estradiol - pharmacology
Female
Graft Rejection
Hypophysectomy
Isoelectric Focusing
Male
Progesterone - pharmacology
Rats
Skin Transplantation
Thyroidectomy
Thyroxine - pharmacology
Transplantation, Heterologous
Online AccessGet more information

Cover

More Information
Summary:Immune competence (as determined by xenograft rejection) was measured following classical endocrine ablation and replacement procedures in the adult rat. Graft rejection, expressed as initial rejection time, was not changed by thyroidectomy, adrenalectomy, or hypophysectomy, either with or without appropriate hormone replacement. In concrast, gonadectomy in 3 rat types (female Sprague-Dawley, male and female Long Evans) decreased initial rejection time; administration of physiological doses of 17beta-estradiol plus progesterone returned the initial rejection time of ovariectomized rats to that observed in unoperated controls. Since initial rejection time was neither decreased by secondary ovariectomy (hypophysectomy) nor increased by sex steroid administration to hypophysectomized rats, it was suggested that the increased immune response after ovariectomy may be due to the presence of an immunopotentiating pituitary factor(s). Although commerical preparations of follicle-stimulating hormone, luteinizing hormone, and luteotropic hormone were found to mimic the effect of ovariectomy, the impurity of these preparations (as judged by isoelectric focusing gels) precluded any conclusion as to the nature of the postulated immunopotentiating factor.
ISSN:0090-0877
DOI:10.3109/08820137609044273