Patients with lepromatous leprosy are unresponsive to lepromin skin-test material and possess defective lymphocyte function in vitro, including impaired mitogenesis in response to antigens of Mycobacterium leprae. It has been claimed that their macrophages cannot digest M. leprae in vitro; such a defect could explain both lepromin nonreactivity and impaired lymphocyte function on the basis of failure of the afferent limb of the immune response (i.e., defective macrophage "processing" of M. leprae). The present studies indicate that macrophages from patients with lepromatous and tuberculoid leprosy and from normal donors do not differ in their ability to digest heat-killed M. leprae in vitro, or in their ability to sustain the viability of M. leprae in tissue culture; that monocytes, macrophages, and polymorphonuclear leukocytes of leprosy patients and controls possess equivalent microbicidal activity against Listeria monocytogenes, Escherichia coli, Proteus vulgaris, Staphylococcus aureus, and Candida albicans; and that polymorphonuclear leukocytes from patients with lepromatous leprosy iodinate ingested bacteria normally. Whether the basic immune defect leading to the development of lepromatous leprosy resides in the lymphocyte or in the macrophage remains to be determined. However, the present study shows that phagocytic cells from patients with either principal form of leprosy function normally in a variety of sophisticated tests of antimicrobial function.
D J Drutz, M J Cline, L Levy
Usage data is cumulative from December 2021 through December 2022.
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.