Key result
Mixtures of poly(I) and poly(ho5C) copolymers protected mice against e.m.c. virus infection as effectively as poly(I:C) but with less than one tenth of the toxicity.
Why the study?
Does a mixture of poly(I) and poly(ho5C) copolymers protect mice against encephalomyocarditis virus infection?
Does a mixture of poly(I) and poly(ho5C) copolymers protect mice against encephalomyocarditis virus infection?
Mixtures of poly(I) and poly(ho5C) copolymers protect mice against encephalomyocarditis virus infection with significantly lower toxicity than poly(I:C), likely through a mechanism independent of interferon production.
Mixtures containing equal masses of polyinosinic acid (poly (I)) and copolymers containing poly(5-hydroxycytidylic acid), (poly(ho5C) copolymers), protect mice against encephalomyocarditis (e. m. c.) virus infection and the protective effect is greatest 6 h before infection. The batches of poly(ho5C) copolymer used in these studies were obtained by bromine water treat ment of polycytidylic acid (poly(C)) and contained cytidine, bromocytidine and hydroxycytidine residues with the latter component comprising between 50% and 81% of the total residues in different preparations. These copolymers were used in solution or in a gelled form obtained by freezing in the absence of salt. Evidence is presented which shows that double stranded complexes do not form when the poly(ho5C) copolymers are mixed with poly(I). Protection of mice with mixtures of poly(I) and poly(ho5C) copolymer was slightly greater than had previously been observed with sequential administration of poly(I) followed by poly(C) or the homopolymer form of poly(ho5C). The gelled form of poly(ho5C) copolymer conferred slightly greater protection than poly(ho5C) copolymer used in the soluble state. The percentage of hydroxycytidine residues in the copolymers did not affect the degree of protection conferred by mixtures of the copolymers with poly (I). Administration of mixtures of poly(I) and soluble poly (ho5C) copolymer by the intraperitoneal route was more effective than the intravenous route when high doses were used at 6 h before infection. At this time, 200 μg/mouse of a mixture of poly (I) and poly(ho5C) copolymer was as protective as 60μg/mouse poly(I:C) but the toxicity of mixtures of poly(I) and poly(ho5C) was less than one tenth that of poly(I:C). The mechanism of the protective effect with single stranded polynucleo tides cannot yet be stated with confidence. However, the protection by mixtures of poly(I) and poly(ho6C) copolymer does not seem to be through interferon production. Serum from mice treated with the nurture of polynucleotides cannot confer protection on other mice subsequently exposed to infection. Further, the mixtures do not hypo-reactivate the protective effect of poly (I : C) treatment which would have been expected had both effects had a common basis in the interferon phenomenon. Moreover, treatment with the mixture does not result in a stimulation of immune response produced by e. m. c. virus infection.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Stebbing et al. (1977) studied Encephalomyocarditis (e.m.c.) virus infection. Mixtures of polyinosinic acid (poly(I)) and poly(5-hydroxycytidylic acid) (poly(ho5C)) copolymers vs. poly(I:C) 60μg/mouse was evaluated on Protection against e.m.c. virus infection. Mixtures of poly(I) and poly(ho5C) copolymers protected mice against e.m.c. virus infection as effectively as poly(I:C) but with less than one tenth of the toxicity.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: