Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-n9wrp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T18:04:12.290Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Monoclonal anti lymphocyte antibodies as immunosuppressive reagents for clinical practice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2011

John W. Fabre
John W. Fabre
Affiliation:
Nuffield Department of Surgery, University of Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford OX3 9DU, England
Get access

Synopsis

By the late 1970s it had become clear that the immunosuppressive effects of conventional anti lymphocyte serum (ALS) were mediated by only a small component of the anti lymphocyte antibodies present. This fact meant that attempts to improve the safety, potency and standardisation of conventional ALS by raising xenosera to single, purified lymphocyte antigens were faced with considerable technical and theoretical problems. Coincidentally and very fortunately, it was at this time that the potential of monoclonal antibodies in the field of ALS were becoming obvious. Their advent has dramatically transformed the situation, from a bleak one with few prospects to one where the early promise of ALS is likely to be realised in the clinic within the next few years. This review looks at why it is that monoclonal antibodies have so changed the situation, and then discusses in detail the optimal properties, in terms of specificity and other characteristics, of immunosuppressive monoclonal antibodies, and finally looks at precisely how they should be used in the clinic.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Section B: Biological Sciences , Volume 81 , Issue 4: Clinical applications of monoclonal antibodies , 1982 , pp. 247 - 259
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beverley, P. 1982. The application of monoclonal antibodies to the typing and isolation of lymphoreticular cells. Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinb. 81B, 000-000.Google Scholar
Bieber, C. P., Howard, F. D. Pennock, J., Wong, J., Shorthouse, R. and Stinson, E. B. 1981. Preparation, characterisation and primate testing of monoclonal anti thymocyte globulin Transplantation 31, 283–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brent, L., Horsburgh, H., Rowland, G. and Wood, P. 1980. Failure to increase the in vivo immunosuppressive activity of antilymphocyte globulin by conjugation with malphalan. Transplantation 29, 280–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cosimi, A. B., Burton, R. C., Kung, P. C., Colvin, R., Goldstein, G., Lifter, J., Rhodes, W. and Russell, P. S. 1981a. Evaluation in primate renal allograft recipients of monoclonal antibody to human T cell subclasses. Transplant. Proc. 13, 499–503.Google ScholarPubMed
Cosimi, A. B., Colvin, R. B., Burton, R. C., Rubin, R. H., Goldstein, G., Kung, P. C., Hansen, W. P., Delmonico, F. L. and Russell, P. S. 1981b. Use of monoclonal antibodies to T cell subsets for immunological monitoring and treatment in recipients of renal allografts. New Engl. J. Med. 3055, 308–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalchau, R. and Fabre, J. W. 1980. Quantitative studies of the tissue distribution of the antigens recognised by rabbit anti rat, dog and human lymphocyte sera. Clin. Exp. Immun. 41, 182–187.Google ScholarPubMed
Dresser, D. W. 1962. Specific inhibition of antibody production. II. Paralysis induced in adult mice by small quantities of protein antigen. Immunology 5, 378–388.Google ScholarPubMed
Editorial, 1975. Current status of antilymphocyte globulin. Br. Med. J. 1, 644–645.Google Scholar
Edwards, D. C., Smith, A., Ross, W. C. J., Cumber, A. J., Thorpe, E. P. and Davies, A. J. S. 1981. The effect of abrin, anti-lymphocyte globulin and their conjugates on the immune response of mice to sheep red blood cells. Experientia 37, 256–257.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fabre, J. W. and Williams, A. F. 1977. Quantitative serological analysis of a rabbit anti rat lymphocyte serum and preliminary biochemical characterisation of the major antigen recognised. Transplantation 23, 349–359.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fabre, J. W., Sunderland, C. A. and Williams, A. F. 1980. Immunosuppressive properties of rabbit antibodies against a major glycoprotein restricted to rat leucocyte membranes. Transplantation 30, 167–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, F. D., Ledbetter, J. A., Wong, J., Bieber, C. P., Stinson, E. B. and Herzenberg, L. A. 1979. A human T lymphocyte differentiation marker defined by monoclonal antibodies that block E-rosette formation. J. Immun. 126, 2117–2122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, J. C., Butcher, G. W., Galfre, G., Milstein, C. and Milstein, C. P. 1979. Monoclonal antibodies as tools to analyse the serological and genetic complexities of major transplantation antigens. Immun. Rev. 47, 139–174.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kohler, G. and Milstein, C. 1975. Continuous cultures of hybrid cells secreting antibody of predefined specificity. Nature, Lond. 256, 495–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsson, L. and Kaplan, H. S. 1980. Human-human hybridomas producing monoclonal antibodies of predefined antigenic specificity. Proc. Nam Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 77, 5429–5431.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reinherz, E. L., Kung, P. C., Goldstein, G. and Schlossman, S. F. 1979a. Further characterisation of the human inducer T cell subset defined by monoclonal antibody. J. Immun. 123, 2894–2896.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reinherz, E. L., Kung, P. C., Goldstein, G. and Schlossman, S. F. 1979b. A monoclonal antibody with selective reactivity with functionally nature human thymocytes and all peripheral human T cells. J. Immun. 126, 1312–1317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinherz, E. L., Hussey, R. E. and Schlossman, S. F. 1980. A monoclonal antibody blocking human T cell function. Eur. J. Immun. 10, 758–762.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reinherz, E. L. and Schlossman, S. F. 1981. The characterisation and function of human immunoregulatory T lymphocyte subsets. Immun. Today 2, 69–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sunderland, C. A., McMaster, W. R. and Williams, A. F. 1979. Purification with monoclonal antibody of a predominant leucocyte common antigen and glycoprotein from rat thymocytes. Eur. J. Immun. 9, 155–159.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thorpe, P. E., Cumber, A. J., Williams, N., Edwards, D. C. and Ross, W. C. J. 1981. Abrogation of the nonspecific toxicity of abrinconjugated to anti lymphocyte globulin. Clin. Exp. Immun. 43, 195–200.Google ScholarPubMed
Thorpe, P. E., Edwards, D. C., Davies, A. J. S. and Ross, W. C. J. 1982. Monoclonal antibody–toxin conjugates: aiming the magic bullet. In Monoclonal Antibodies in Clinical Medicine, ed. McMichael, A. J. and Fabre, J. W. London: Academic PressGoogle Scholar
van Wauwe, J. P., de Mey, J. R. and Goossens, J. G. 1980. OKT3: a monoclonal anti human T lymphocyte antibody with potent mitogenic properties. J. Immun. 124, 2708–2713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodruff, M. F. A. and Anderson, N. A. 1963. Effect of lymphocyte depletion by thoracic duct fistula and administration of anti lymphocyte serum on the survival of skin homografts in rats. Nature, Lond. 200, 702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar