hardy at mighty.fccc.edu (Richard R. Hardy) wrote:
>In article <4d37nb$d53 at netnews.upenn.edu>, David Peritt
><Peritt_d at a1.mscf.upenn.edu> wrote:
>>>In article <4d2h5a$ha0 at gap.cco.caltech.edu> jc catalano,
>>jcc at alumnae.caltech.edu writes:
>>>So do you use a rat or another animal to produce anti-mouse monoclonals?
>>>>>>BINGO rat is most common today. then grow the ascites in a nude
>>mouse....
>>Some have also had success with hamster (anti-mouseCD3 for ex)...
>____________________________________________________________________________
>Richard R. Hardy Member, Institute for Cancer Research
>Fox Chase Cancer Center Tel: (215) 728-2463
>7701 Burholme Ave. FAX: (215) 728-2412
>Philadelphia, PA 19111 E-MAIL: RR_HARDY at fccc.edu
agreed, choosing another host is a solution. I would like to
take this opportunity to ask a - may be naive - question (forgive
me, I am biochemist, not immunologist and these things are not
in the textbooks):
Would it also be necessary to change the host when we deal
with a strictly intracellular protein? I would think that
for those proteins no elimination of antibody producing cells
has been taken place. Along the same lines I would then guess that
the response of the mouse (or the rabitt etc) is not restricted to
these amino acids that are actually different between the foreign
protein and its homologue in the host.
Is any experience or published evidence for this available?
Thank you for any information to solve this question that
puzzles me for quite some time.
Regards
Torsten
------------------------------------------------------------------------/
Torsten Boerchers /
_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Institute of Chemical- and Biochemical Sensor/
_/ _/ _/ _/ Research (Molecular Biology Group) /
_/ _/ _/_/_/ Mendelstr 7, D-48149 Muenster, Germany /
_/ _/ _/ _/ Fax: +49-251-980 2890 Phone: +49-251-980 2880/
_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ E-Mail: borcher at uni-muenster.de /
-----------------------------------------------------------------/
