In article <4v5ero$722 at dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>,
Betty Bridges <bcb56 at ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>With that in mind is it possible for formaldehyde and other reactive
>chemicals to bind with other substances in the air and cause a immune
>response to those substances?
>>Would there be any significant difference in the effect of substances
>inhaled and absorbed into the blood stream and those given by
>vaccination?
There is little evidence that as a general principle formaldehyde
increases antigenicity (i.e. increases the immune response to antigens;
formaldehyde can cause already-generated antibodies to react with
proteins, but as that's irrelevant to this discussion I won't go into it).
In fact there is some evidence that formaldehyde in general decreases
antigenicity:
di Tommaso A. de Magistris MT. Bugnoli M. Marsili I. Rappuoli R.
Abrignani S.
Formaldehyde treatment of proteins can constrain presentation to T
cells by limiting antigen processing.
Infection & Immunity. 62(5):1830-4, 1994
Bachmann MF. Kundig TM. Kalberer CP. Hengartner H. Zinkernagel RM.
Formalin inactivation of vesicular stomatitis virus impairs T-cell-
but not T-help-independent B-cell responses.
Journal of Virology. 67(7):3917-22, 1993
so if anything it's more likely that any formaldehye-treated airborne
substance would be less antigenic.
Secondly, looking at the abstract of the article you cite, it isn't at all
clear that the formaldehyde is *increasing* the antigenicity of the
vaccine; rather, it may be *preserving* the antigenicity by preventing
degradation of the antigen(s) in vitro (which is a known effect of
formaldehyde, of course); so even in this one instance I don't think you
can say with confidence that formaldehyde increases the antigenicity.
Ian
--
Ian York (iayork at panix.com) <http://www.panix.com/~iayork/>
"-but as he was a York, I am rather inclined to suppose him a
very respectable Man." -Jane Austen, The History of England
