Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Low-dose priming of mice with Escherichia coli O113 lipopolysaccharide (LPS) results in the development of immunological memory, whereas low-dose priming with E. coli O55 LPS or Serratia marcescens LPS induces significant antigen-specific unresponsiveness. All three preparations of LPS induced proliferation of mouse splenocytes with similar time course and [3H]thymidine uptake. There was no correlation between the small amounts of serum antibody detected by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay after low-dose priming and the subsequent generation of either memory or unresponsiveness. Further, the passive transfer of small amounts of LPS-specific antibody had no significant effect on the magnitude of the plaque-forming cell (PFC) response elicited after subsequent immunization. Reduction of the PFC response to E. coli O55 LPS occurred after low-dose priming of nu/nu (as well as nu/+) mice; however, unresponsiveness could not be generated in nu/nu mice by low-dose priming with S. marcescens LPS. Thus, although the development of low-dose unresponsiveness to S. marcescens LPS appears to involve T cells, the response of E. coli O55 LPS does not. Enhancement of the primary PFC response to S. marcescens LPS could be transferred with low-dose primed spleen cells depleted of Lyt-2+ T cells; this suggests that the magnitude of the PFC response to this preparation of LPS is negatively influenced by Lyt-2+ T cells and positively influenced by Lyt-2- spleen cells (i.e., L3T4+ T cells). These findings indicate that T cells appear to be involved in regulating the magnitude of the antibody response to some types of bacterial LPS.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Elkins et al. (1987) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: