-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To enhance protection from pathogens, housing conditions have been improved constantly. We wanted to test whether various environmental conditions and caging systems affect serum cytokine levels of immunodeficient mice differently than they affect immunocompetent control animals. We compared serum cytokine levels of immunodeficient and immunocompetent mice kept in three different environments: a specific pathogen free (SPF) breeding barrier with open cages. An SPF experimental unit with individually ventilated cages. An experimental semi-barrier with open cages. Serum from Rag1(-/-), μMT(-/-), IFN-γR(-/-), IFN-γ(-/-), IL-4(-/-), the heterozygous controls and wild type C57BL/6 or BALB/c mice was analyzed for the presence of 10 cytokines (IL-1α, IL-2, IL-4, IL-5, IL-6, IL-10, IL-17, IFN-γ, TNF-α and GM-CSF). No major changes in cytokine levels were detected in mice exposed to different housing conditions. However, irrespective of immunodeficiency at 4weeks of age a number of mice from the breeding colonies with a targeted mutation (TM), both -/- and +/- mice, showed a statistically significant elevation of some cytokines (primarily IL-1α, IL-5) when compared to wild type BALB/c and C57BL/6 mice. We conclude that under SPF conditions, immunodeficient mice can be kept either in open caging or IVC systems without affecting serum cytokine levels. The more important conclusion, however, stems from the observation that there is a significant difference in serum cytokine levels between wild type and mice carrying either one or two alleles of a targeted mutation (either -/- and +/- mice). This suggests an altered base-line inflammatory responsiveness in the TM-breeding colonies.
Cytokine 08/2012; · 3.02 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Mice deficient either in subtypes of immune cells, cytokines or lytic pathways have been subjected to chemical carcinogenesis by methylcholanthrene to evaluate whether these components of the immune system affect tumor development. Inbred mice of the same genotype but from different sources differed in tumor development in magnitude comparable to that previously attributed to differences in immunocompetence. This suggested that genetic drift between separate inbred colonies of mice and/or environmental factors (e.g., transport of the animals) influenced carcinogenesis. Therefore, littermates were used as control in subsequent experiments. Although deficiency of T-cells, NKT-cells, perforin, Fas-ligand, TNF-α-receptor failed to reveal significant differences in tumor development, the presence of B-cells and IL-4 enhanced tumor development under similar experimental conditions.
International Journal of Cancer 12/2011; 131(7):1499-508. · 5.44 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: It has been shown that injecting a suspension of IFN-γ-secreting tumor cells results in their rejection. This effect has been attributed to IFN-γ preventing tumor stroma formation but not to a direct effect on the cancer cells. However, it is not known, which influence IFN-γ has on tumors with an established stroma. To address this question, the plasmacytoma cell line J558L was transduced with a vector allowing doxycycline-inducible IFN-γ gene expression. After the injection of the tumor cells into mice, IFN-γ was induced at different time points. Tumors did not grow when inducing IFN-γ immediately after tumor cell inoculation, while approximately half of the tumors were rejected when IFN-γ was induced in early established tumors within 2 weeks. Induction of IFN-γ 2-3 weeks after tumor cell inoculation was less efficient (0-17% rejection). IFN-γ induction in established tumors led to a reduction of CD146(+) endothelial cells and massive necrosis. Together, we show that vascularized tumors can be rejected by local IFN-γ expression, but that rejection of established tumors was less efficient over time. This suggests that transplanted tumors became less susceptible to local IFN-γ treatment the better they are established.
International Journal of Cancer 03/2010; 128(2):371-8. · 5.44 Impact Factor
