Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T07:51:53.945Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A search for histocompatibility differences between irradiated sublines of inbred mice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

J. Godfrey  and
A. G. Searle
J. Godfrey
Affiliation:
Medical Research Council, Radiobiological Research Unit, Harwell, Berkshire, England
A. G. Searle
Affiliation:
Medical Research Council, Radiobiological Research Unit, Harwell, Berkshire, England
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

(1) A tail-skin grafting method was used to test for histocompatibility differences between members of thirteen sublines of C3H inbred mice, kept in a 1 r./night gamma radiation field for twelve generations, on the average, and separated from each other by about thirty-four generations.

(2) No homograft rejections occurred, so there was no evidence to suggest that mutations at histocompatibility loci had taken place in any of these sublines. Calculations show that this finding does not conflict with the idea that a fairly large number of loci are involved, having mutation rates similar to those already known in the mouse.

Type
Research Article
Information
Genetics Research , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , February 1963 , pp. 21 - 29
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1963

References

REFERENCES

Bailey, D. W. & Usama, B. (1960). A rapid method of grafting skin on tails of mice. Transpl. Bull. 7, 424–425.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barnes, A. D. & Krohn, P. L. (1957). The estimation of the number of histocompatibility genes controlling the successful transplantation of normal skin in mice. Proc. roy. Soc. B, 146, 505–526.Google ScholarPubMed
Billingham, R. E., Brent, L., Medawar, P. B. & Sparrow, E. M. (1954). Quantitative studies on tissue transplantation immunity. I. Proc. roy. Soc. B, 143, 43–58.Google ScholarPubMed
Billingham, R. E., Hodge, B. A. & Silvers, W. K. (1962). An estimate of the number of histocompatibility loci in the rat. Proc. not. Acad. Sci., Wash., 48, 138–147.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carter, T. C., Lyon, M. F. & Phillips, R. J. S. (1956). Induction of mutations in mice by chronic gamma irradiation: interim report. Brit. J. Radiol. 29, 106–108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carter, T. C., Lyon, M. F. & Phillips, R. J. S. (1958). Genetic hazard of ionizing radiations. Nature, Lond., 182, 409.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Counce, S., Smith, P., Barth, R. & Snell, G. D. (1956). Strong and weak histocompatibility gene differences in mice and their role in the rejection of homografts of tumours and skin. Ann. Surg. 144, 198–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deol, M. S., Grüneberg, H., Searle, A. G. & Truslove, G. M. (1957) Genetical differentiation involving morphological characters in an inbred strain of mice. I. J. Morph. 100, 345–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dhaliwal, S. S. (1961). Studies on histocompatibility mutations in mouse tumour cells using isogenic strains of mice. Genet. Res.. 2, 309–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, R. A. (1949). The Theory of Inbreeding. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd.Google Scholar
Klein, E. & Klein, G. (1959). The use of histocompatibility genes as markers for the study of isoantigenic variation in populations of tumour cells. In Symposium on Biological Problems of Grafting, Liège, March 1959.Google Scholar
Mitchison, N. A. (1956). Antigens of heterozygous tumours as material for the study of cell heredity. Proc. roy. phys. Soc. Edin. 25, 45–48.Google Scholar
Russell, W. L. (1951). X-ray induced mutations in mice. Cold Spr. Harb. Symp. quant. Biol. 16, 327–336.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Russell, W. L., Russell, L. B. & Kelly, E. M. (1958). Radiation dose rate and mutation frequency. Science, 128, 1546–1550.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed