In article <3l24vg$8c0 at moe.cc.emory.edu> pkrug at moe.cc.emory.edu (Peter William Krug) writes:
>grenard at herpmed.com wrote:
>>: I believe that antibodies can be harvested from the sera of infected
>: individuals, concentrated and then administered to victims to fight
>>Wouldn't the antibodies be anti-idiotypic? For example, If the monkey's
>ab to the virus were injected into a human, wouldn't the human's immune
>system mount a response against these foriegn ab's? Are humans that close
>to any monkey to be able to accept the ab?
Yes and no. Following the injection, there will be an
anti-antiserum response. That is slow enough that the original antiserum
injected in can perform its work - remember that the human will be
raising a primary response. The response will predominately not be
anti-idiotype, though; the bulk of the response will be directed against
those components of the constant region that differ between species.
Mouse monoclonals are used in some human therapeutic work - at
least exerimentally - and I believe that traditional anti-tetanus
antiserum was raised in horses - perhaps the same is true for rabies as
well, though I'm not sure about that. To emphasize what is probably
obvious, you don't want to get two exposures to this sort of thing - you
have a reasonable chance of undergoing anaphylactic shock on the second
massive exposure to the foreign antiserum.
There are some differences in the secondary effects of the
foreign antibodies, which others can probably handle better than I - I
think that mouse antibodies don't do much for the human complement
system, for example.
Ian York (york at mbcrr.harvard.edu)
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, 44 Binney St., Boston MA 02115
Phone (617)-632-3921 Fax (617)-632-2627