>>Hello everyone,
>> I am pretty
confuse here about the route of immunisation!!! I am
>>currently working with a mouse model where I take my protein antigen
in
>>Freund's adjuvant.... and immunised the victim via intraperitoneal
route
>>.... in the hope of stimulating a good systemic response as well as
good
>>T-cells reponse....
>> However, I have been
receiving advice from people (immunologists)
>>and found that ip. immunisation is not a good way to go about if I
want
>>a good systemic/T-cells reponse..... They all recommended
subcutaneous
>>injection or intradermal injection....
>> Problem is I am so used to
ip. route immunisation and my work have
>>been sort of based on ip. immunisation.... and things have not been
>>working very well for me... and on the other hand, if I change the
route
>>of immunisation.. then my work is sort of down the drain!!!!
>> Does anyone have any insight
to this!!!!????? Please!!!??
>>>Thank you!!!!
>>>Sincerely,
>>Grace Ho PhD student
>>Curtin University of Technology
>>Western Australia
>>Email: EHO17 at alpha1.curtin.edu.au>>>If the only reason you have to continue with i.p. immunization is that
you
>are used to it, maybe you should review your entire approach to
research.
> Omar O. Barriga
Maybe Omar should review HIS approach to research. My inference is
that she does not want to change the route IN THE MIDDLE OF A
STUDY. Besides the merely "formal" consideration that one should
not change details of procedure from subject to subject, there is
the very real possibility that route may affect potency in ways
you don't imagine. Don't have the reference right here, but I
believe Bruce McEwen (current pres., Society for Neuroscience)
was one author on recent paper (POSSIBLY in Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci)
on impact of stress on immunization. One route may be more
stressful than the other (and not just for the researcher!).
Frank LeFever
New York Neuropsychology Group
