Cancer Research AACR Conference on Molecular Diagnostics - 2008  Cancer Health Disparities Conference 2009
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cancer Research Clinical Cancer Research
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
Molecular Cancer Research Cancer Prevention Research
Cancer Prevention Journals Portal Cancer Reviews Online
Annual Meeting Education Book Meeting Abstracts Online

[Cancer Research 36, 1222-1227, April 1, 1976]
© 1976 American Association for Cancer Research

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Vecchi, A.
Right arrow Articles by Spreafico, F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Vecchi, A.
Right arrow Articles by Spreafico, F.

A Characterization of the Immunosuppressive Activity of Adriamycin and Daunomycin on Humoral Antibody Production and Tumor Allograft Rejection1

A. Vecchi, A. Mantovani2, A. Tagliabue and F. Spreafico3

Istituto di Richerche Farmacologiche "Mario Negri,", Via Erirtea 62, 20157 Milan, Italy

The effects of adriamycin (AM) and its analog daunomycin (DM) on immunological responsiveness have been investigated in an effort to elucidate whether a differential interaction of the two drugs with the immune system could play a role in the higher antineoplastic activity of AM. It was found that AM induced a greater reduction in the number of antibody-producing cells after primary stimulation with sheep erythrocytes, whereas DM was more suppressive on the secondary response to the same antigen. Primary reactivity to the T-independent antigen S-III was reduced by AM, whereas DM was ineffective in the same conditions even at high doses. In addition, when a tumor allograft model was investigated, DM was significantly more immunosuppressive than was AM administered at equitoxic doses.

In contrast, these agents displayed similar activity in reducing bone marrow stem cells and in inhibiting DNA synthesis in this organ. The possibility that the different immunosuppressive capacity of AM and DM contributes to the greater antitumoral activity of the former is advanced.

1 This work was supported by Contract NIH-NCI-C-72-3242.

2 Partially supported by a fellowship from the Anna Villa Rusconi Foundation.

3 To whom correspondence and reprint requests should be addressed, at Laboratory of Tumor Immunology and Chemotherapy, Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche "Mario Negri," Via Eritrea 62, 20157 Milan, Italy.

Received 8/ 6/75. Accepted 12/16/75.







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cancer Research Clinical Cancer Research
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
Molecular Cancer Research Cancer Prevention Research
Cancer Prevention Journals Portal Cancer Reviews Online
Annual Meeting Education Book Meeting Abstracts Online
Copyright © 1976 by the American Association for Cancer Research.