EFFECT OF BOAR SEMINAL IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE COMPONENT ON HUMORAL IMMUNE-RESPONSE IN MICE

Citation
L. Veselsky et al., EFFECT OF BOAR SEMINAL IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE COMPONENT ON HUMORAL IMMUNE-RESPONSE IN MICE, American journal of reproductive immunology [1989], 38(2), 1997, pp. 106-113
Citations number
35
Categorie Soggetti
Reproductive Biology",Immunology
ISSN journal
10467408
Volume
38
Issue
2
Year of publication
1997
Pages
106 - 113
Database
ISI
SICI code
1046-7408(1997)38:2<106:EOBSIC>2.0.ZU;2-S
Abstract
PROBLEM: The effect of seminal immunosuppressive component (ISF) on th e primary and secondary antibody response, induced by soluble and/or c orpuscular antigens, was evaluated in the sera obtained at different i ntervals before and after immunizations. The duration of the immune su ppression induced by ISF treatment within the primary and secondary im munizations was also determined. METHOD OF STUDY: The ability of the s eminal immunosuppressive component to suppress the primary and seconda ry antibody response was evaluated by enzyme-linked immunoadsorbent as say (ELISA) in the sera of mice treated in vivo with the immunosuppres sor before and after immunization with antigens. Likewise, the duratio n of the immune suppression induced by the seminal immunosuppressor ad ministered before the primary and secondary immunizations was tested b y ELISA with antisera to keyhole limpets hemocyanin. RESULTS: Intraven ous and rectal deposition of ISF led to a suppression of the primary a nd secondary antibody response to soluble and corpuscular antigens. Th e most effective suppression of the immune response was achieved in mi ce treated with immunosuppressor 3 days before the immunization with a ntigens. Also the secondary antibody response to the challenging antig en was significantly suppressed by ISE The production of immunoglobuli n G (IgG), IgM, and IgA to keyhole limpets hemocyanin was depressed fo r a relatively long period in mice treated with the immunosuppressor. The results indicated that the preexposure is needed for maximal immun osuppression of the primary antibody production. The treatment with IS F led to a prolonged immunosuppression but not to permanent tolerance to the challenging antigen. CONCLUSIONS: The in vivo deposition of sem en may compromise some aspects of the immune system and may be an impo rtant factor in the development of viral and bacterial infections. The suppression of humoral immune response suggests potential uses of sem inal immunosuppressor for the animal model study in the therapy of ant ibody-mediated diseases.