4.7 Article

Use of SRBC antibody responses for immunotoxicity testing

Journal

METHODS
Volume 41, Issue 1, Pages 9-19

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ymeth.2006.07.020

Keywords

humoral immune response; sheep red blood cells; antibody forming cell assay; SRBC-specific IgM ELISA; rodents; inimunotoxicity; methods; protocols

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The production of antigen-specific antibodies represents a major defense mechanism of humoral immune responses and involves the cooperation and interaction of several immune cell types: antigen presenting cells, T helper cells, and B cells. Thus, there are several cells or cell products (e.g., interleukins) that may be altered following xenobiotic exposure, making assays that evaluate the production of antigen specific antibody a relatively comprehensive and sensitive assessment of immune function. Data suggest that the primary antibody response to SRBC may be one of the most sensitive endpoints available to assess chemical-induced alterations to the immune system. As a result, this endpoint has become the cornerstone of several recently established guidelines for assessing the potential immunotoxicity of xenobiotics. Five types of antibody may be produced in a humoral immune response (i.e., IgGs of various subtypes, IgM. lgD, IgA, or IgE). For immunotoxicity assessment, the focus has primarily been on assays that assess production of IgGs antibodies. Although a number of assays have been developed to evaluate antibody production, the antibody forming cell (AFC) assay and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) are the two most frequently employed to evaluate the potential immunotoxicity of a xenobiotic. In this manuscript, background information, as well as the pros and cons of each of these assays are discussed and detailed methods on conducting each assay are provided. (c) 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available