Go to JCI Insight
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Publication ethics
  • Publication alerts by email
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Contact
  • Clinical Research and Public Health
  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • By specialty
    • COVID-19
    • Cardiology
    • Gastroenterology
    • Immunology
    • Metabolism
    • Nephrology
    • Neuroscience
    • Oncology
    • Pulmonology
    • Vascular biology
    • All ...
  • Videos
    • Conversations with Giants in Medicine
    • Video Abstracts
  • Reviews
    • View all reviews ...
    • Pancreatic Cancer (Jul 2025)
    • Complement Biology and Therapeutics (May 2025)
    • Evolving insights into MASLD and MASH pathogenesis and treatment (Apr 2025)
    • Microbiome in Health and Disease (Feb 2025)
    • Substance Use Disorders (Oct 2024)
    • Clonal Hematopoiesis (Oct 2024)
    • Sex Differences in Medicine (Sep 2024)
    • View all review series ...
  • Viewpoint
  • Collections
    • In-Press Preview
    • Clinical Research and Public Health
    • Research Letters
    • Letters to the Editor
    • Editorials
    • Commentaries
    • Editor's notes
    • Reviews
    • Viewpoints
    • 100th anniversary
    • Top read articles

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Specialties
  • Reviews
  • Review series
  • Conversations with Giants in Medicine
  • Video Abstracts
  • In-Press Preview
  • Clinical Research and Public Health
  • Research Letters
  • Letters to the Editor
  • Editorials
  • Commentaries
  • Editor's notes
  • Reviews
  • Viewpoints
  • 100th anniversary
  • Top read articles
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Publication ethics
  • Publication alerts by email
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Contact
Top
  • View PDF
  • Download citation information
  • Send a comment
  • Terms of use
  • Standard abbreviations
  • Need help? Email the journal
  • Top
  • Abstract
  • Version history
  • Article usage
  • Citations to this article

Advertisement

Free access | 10.1172/JCI109190

Suppressor-Cell Dysfunction in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: CELLS INVOLVED AND IN VITRO CORRECTION

Akira Sagawa and Nabih I. Abdou

Department of Medicine, Section of Allergy, Clinical Immunology, and Rheumatology, University of Kansas, Kansas City, Kansas 66103

Veterans Administration Hospital, Kansas City, Missouri 64128

Find articles by Sagawa, A. in: PubMed | Google Scholar

Department of Medicine, Section of Allergy, Clinical Immunology, and Rheumatology, University of Kansas, Kansas City, Kansas 66103

Veterans Administration Hospital, Kansas City, Missouri 64128

Find articles by Abdou, N. in: PubMed | Google Scholar

Published October 1, 1978 - More info

Published in Volume 62, Issue 4 on October 1, 1978
J Clin Invest. 1978;62(4):789–796. https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI109190.
© 1978 The American Society for Clinical Investigation
Published October 1, 1978 - Version history
View PDF
Abstract

To characterize the cell(s) responsible for the suppressor-cell dysfunction in active systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), we fractionated blood mononuclear cells into thymus-derived (T), bone marrow-derived (B), and monocyte-depleted populations. Various cell populations from active SLE, inactive SLE, or normals, were activated with Concanavalin A, washed, and then co-cultured with active SLE cells. Soluble immune response suppressor (SIRS) from culture supernates of the activated cells was also used for the possible correction of the suppressor-cell dysfunction. Suppression was tested by enumerating DNA-binding cells by radioautography and by quantitating anti-DNA antibody in culture supernates by radioimmunoassay; and immunoglobulin was tested in cells and supernates by the immunofluorescence and the immunofluor techniques, respectively. Except for the numbers of DNA-binding cells, which were not suppressed, all the other three parameters in co-cultures with cells from active SLE patients were suppressed by Concanavalin A-activated cells (P < 0.001), or by SIRS (P < 0.05) from normals or inactive SLE patients. Concanavalin A-activated autologous or allogeneic active SLE cells and nonactivated cells from active or inactive SLE failed to suppress the various B-cell functions. Nonactivated normal cells suppressed levels of anti-DNA and immunoglobulin in supernates (P < 0.05).

In characterizing the cells responsible for the suppressor dysfunction, it was clear from the results that T cells responsive to Concanavalin A activation are deficient in active SLE and fail to generate SIRS. On the other hand, monocytes from active SLE patients are responsive to signals from the activated T cells of normals or inactive SLE donors. Because SIRS suppresses active SLE cells in vitro, it might be considered therapeutically for the in vivo modulation of SLE.

Browse pages

Click on an image below to see the page. View PDF of the complete article

icon of scanned page 789
page 789
icon of scanned page 790
page 790
icon of scanned page 791
page 791
icon of scanned page 792
page 792
icon of scanned page 793
page 793
icon of scanned page 794
page 794
icon of scanned page 795
page 795
icon of scanned page 796
page 796
Version history
  • Version 1 (October 1, 1978): No description

Article tools

  • View PDF
  • Download citation information
  • Send a comment
  • Terms of use
  • Standard abbreviations
  • Need help? Email the journal

Metrics

  • Article usage
  • Citations to this article

Go to

  • Top
  • Abstract
  • Version history
Advertisement
Advertisement

Copyright © 2025 American Society for Clinical Investigation
ISSN: 0021-9738 (print), 1558-8238 (online)

Sign up for email alerts