| 
             * This work was supported by NIH Grant Nos. CA 
              28461. CA 29609. CA 14216, and A1 07019 
              
              A. Introduction 
             Contrasuppression is an immunoregulatory T -cell activity that 
              protects Lyt I+. 2- T helper cell activity from suppression. This 
              activity involves both an "induction" (afferent) phase, which requires 
              the activation of an Lyt 1+, 2- effector T cell by cells in the 
              contrasuppressor circuit [6], and an "effector" (efferent) phase, 
              in which the effector cells or cell-free products secreted by these 
              cells render T H cells resistant to suppression [4]. Recently we 
              discovered an activity in antisera raised against methylcholanthrene-induced 
              sarcomas from Balb/c mice, which blocks T -cell regulatory activity 
              [3]. These antisera block the afferent as well as the efferent phase 
              of suppression to SRBC in vitro, but only in animals which express 
              the same Igh gene polymorphism as Balb/c (lgha). We therefore tested 
              whether these antisera could block the afferent and efferent phases 
              of contrasuppression. and whether this activity had any effect on 
              the growth of tumors in those mice.  
             
              B. Materials and Methods  
            The chemically induced sarcomas, and the antisera against them, 
              were prepared according to procedures described by DeLeo et al. 
              [ 1. 2] .Suppressor T cells were prepared according to the method 
              of J aneway [5]. Contrasuppressor T cells were prepared according 
              to the method of Green [4]. Contrasuppressor factor (T csF) is a 
              cell-ffee supernatant collected from in vitro generated T cs cells. 
              Generation of primary antiSRBC cultures and blocking assays with 
              antisera has been described [3]. Assays for metastasis were performed 
              by injecting 10 high5 or 5 X 10 high4 Meth A cells into the right 
              footpad of test animals. After 3-4 weeks, lymph nodes were removed 
              and weighed and examined histologically for evidence of tumor cell 
              growth. Animals positive for metastasis were those which showed 
              tumor cell growth in the popliteal lymph nodes of the left leg, 
              as well as both axilary lymph nodes.  
             
              C. Results  
            Antisera effective in blocking the afferent but not the efferent 
              phase of suppression were tested for their abilitiy to block the 
              afferent and efferent phases of con trasuppression (Table I). Antisera 
              raised in syngeneic Balb/c mice against Meth A (or other MC-induced 
              tumors. data not shown) were ineffective in blocking the activity 
              of either the T csF , which represents the efferent phase of contrasuppression. 
              or the T cs cells. which represents the afferent phase of contrasuppression. 
              However. antisera raised in semisyngeneic CB6Fl or 19h congenic 
              C.B20 mice effectively blocked the activity of the Balb/c T cs cells 
              but not the T csF. Likewise. these antisera were very effective 
              in blocking afferent Tcs activity in CB6F 1 mice, while they were 
              ineffective in blocking T cs activity in Lgh disparate mice, reiterating 
              the earlier finding on the nature of  
            Table I. Antisera to Meth A raised in 
              Ighb+mice block contrasuppression  
               
             
            
               
             
               
              the Meth A antigen [3]. When antisera was absorbed with tumor cells 
              passed in either Balb/c or CB6Fl mice, only Fl passed tumor cells 
              absorbed the activity (Table 2), suggesting a higher density of 
              relevant antigen on cells passaged in F l mice. When Balb/c, CB6Fl, 
              or C.B20 tumor-bearing mice were assayed for metastasis, in repeated 
              experiments less than 15% of Balb/c or C.B20 mice had lymph node 
              metastasis, while greater than 93% of CB6F l mice developed metastasis 
              after injection of Meth A cells.  
            Table 2. Tumors passed in CB6Fl but not 
              Balb/c absorb blocking activity  
               
             
            
               
            
 
               
              D. Discussion 
             An additional activity, the blocking of contrasuppression, has 
              been found in antisera against MC-induced tumors. Experiments with 
              F 1 and Igh congenic mice indicate that effective antisera can only 
              be generated in mice containing Igh disparate genes, while activity 
              is only directed against cells expressing the Igh a gene locus. 
              This brings up the apparent dichotomy that F 1 mice generate autoantibody 
              to their own Ighlinked gene products. However, tumors passaged in 
              F 1 animals express the relevant antigen in a much higher surface 
              density than does the parental strain. This ""adaptive differentiation 
              " process may explain the difference in tumorgenicity between F 
              1 and Balb/c mice, as measured by metastasis. The intriguing possibility 
              exists that F 1 mice produce autoantibodies that block the generation 
              of their own contrasuppressor cells, and that these contra suppressor 
              cells are important in controlling tumor metastasis. It also suggests 
              that while many tumor cells escape immune destruction by generating 
              suppressor T cells to depress immune responses, malignant cells 
              may also escape by ""encouraging" immunity, e.g., generating antigens 
              which mimic normal cellular interaction structures and thereby blocking 
              important cellular communication mechanisms needed to generate effective 
              antitumor immunity. 
             
              References  
            1. DeLeo et al. (1977) J Exp Med 146: 720  
            2. DeLeo et al. (1979) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 76:2420  
            3. Flood et al. (to be published) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 
             4. Green et al.(1981)EurJlmmunol ll:973  
            5. Janeway et al. (1975) Nature 253:544  
            6. Yamauchi et al. (1981) J Exp Med 153: 1547  
           |