Vet Pathol Email Content Delivery
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Burgess, S. C.
Right arrow Articles by Davison, T. F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Burgess, S. C.
Right arrow Articles by Davison, T. F.
Vet Pathol 38:129-142 (2001)
© 2001 American College of Veterinary Pathologists

Resistance to Marek's Disease Herpesvirus-induced Lymphoma is Multiphasic and Dependent on Host Genotype

S. C. Burgess, B. H. Basaran and T. F. Davison

Division of Immunopathology, Institute for Animal Health, Compton, Newbury, Berks, UK (SCB, TFD); and Department of Pathology and Infectious Diseases, Royal Veterinary College, Royal College Street, London, UK (BHB)


   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Genotype-dependent differences in Marek's disease (MD) susceptibility were identified using 14-day-old line N and 61 (resistant) and 15I and 72 (susceptible) inbred chickens infected with HPRS-16 MD virus (MDV). All line 72 chickens developed progressive MD. Line 15I had fluctuating MD-specific clinical signs and individuals recovered. A novel histologic scoring system enabled indices to be calculated for lymphocyte infiltration into nonlymphoid organs. All genotypes had increased mean lesion scores (MLSs) and mean total lesion scores after MDV infection. These differed quantitatively and qualitatively between the genotypes. Lines 61 and 72 had a similar MLS distribution in the cytolytic phase, although scores were greater in line 72. At the time lymphomas were visible in line 72, histologic lesions in line 61 were regressing. AV37+ cells were present in similar numbers in all genotypes in the cytolytic phase, suggesting that neoplastically transformed cells were present in all genotypes regardless of MD susceptibility. After the cytolytic phase, AV37+ cell numbers increased in lines 72 and 15I but decreased in lines 61 and N. In the cytolytic and latent phases, in all genotypes, most infiltrating cells were CD4+. After this time, line 72 and 15I lesions increased in size and most cells were CD4+; line 61 and N lesions decreased in size and most cells were CD8+. In all genotypes, AV37 immunostaining was weak in lesions with many CD8+ cells, suggesting that AV37 antigen expression or AV37+ cells were controlled by CD8+ cells. The rank order, determined by clinical signs and pathology, for MD susceptibility (highest to lowest) was 72 > 15I > 61 > N.

Key words: AV37; chickens; host genotype; lymphoma; Marek's disease; tumor immunity; tumor regression.

Biological tumor regression is a well-recognized, but generally rare and poorly understood, phenomenon.13 Increased tumor incidence in immunosuppressed hosts,40 antibodies against tumor antigens,49 and reactive cytotoxic lymphocyte (CTL) clones isolated from peripheral blood or tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes,5,54 all provide evidence of a role for the immune system in tumor regression. Identifying the mechanisms involved has proved difficult because of lack of natural in vivo model systems, where host genetic and etiologic factors can be controlled. One exception to this is the naturally occurring avian retrovirus, Rous sarcoma virus (RSV). RSV induces tumors in chickens because it carries the v-src oncogene and after infection major histocompatibility (MHC) haplotype-determined sarcoma progression or regression occurs. The latter is CD8+ cell dependent and v-src seems to be the sole immunogen.20,21,51

Herpesviruses have been associated with neoplasia in general, and lymphomas in particular, in humans and other species. Marek's disease (MD), an established model of herpesvirus-induced lymphoma,9,60 is caused by an oncogenic {alpha}-herpesvirus (Marek's disease virus [MDV]) of chickens. We have studied this complex disease9,46 in order to determine whether genotype-dependent tumor regression or progression occurs.

The chicken genotype has long been associated with resistance and susceptibility to MD and all genotypes are susceptible to lifelong MDV infection.62 The MHC class I genes influence resistance to MD; chickens expressing the B21 allele (e.g., line N) are MD-resistant, although the mechanism is not known.20 Additional, as yet unidentified, host genes also influence MD resistance and susceptibility. Line 61 and line 72 both express the same MHC class I allele (B2) but the former is MD resistant and the latter is MD susceptible. MD lymphoma regression in F1 progeny of a line 15 x 7 cross53 has been described despite both parental lines being regarded as MD susceptible.11,15

The life cycle of MDV is typical of the Herpesviridae with both cytolytic and latent stages. MD can be divided into cytolytic, latent, and tumor phases,9 and, potentially, immunity can develop in any phase. MD lymphoma regression has been reported and suggested to be affected by virus and host genotype and specific immunity.24,38,53 Payne and Biggs30 classified lymphoproliferation in nerves taken from MDV-infected, outbred chickens as type A, lymphoproliferative infiltration and demyelination; type B, interneuritic edema with a light inflammatory infiltration of small lymphocytes and plasma cells and demyelination; or type C, light infiltration of small lymphocytes and plasma cells. Nerve lesions progress from type A to type B the longer individual chickens survive after the onset of MD-specific clinical signs,24,38 whereas type C lesions are a mild form of type B lesions.38 Evidence for specific antilymphoma immunity in MD has been obtained in systems involving vaccination of chickens with avirulent MD cell line cells.12,32,42 However, antilymphoma immunity in MD, and the identity of potential immunogens, remains controversial.50 To date, no studies using a specific MDV pathotype or defined host genotypes have been used to examine lymphoma regression in MD.

We infected four genotypes of chickens (lines 61, 72, 15I, and N) with a well-defined virulent pathotype of MDV (HPRS-16) and quantified resistance or susceptibility to MD lymphoma relative to the phase of MD (cytolytic, latent, tumor). The phenotypes of cells involved in lymphoid infiltrates in each genotype are described, with particular reference to those cells expressing a putative marker of neoplastic transformation recognized by the monoclonal antibody AV37.47


   Materials and Methods
Top
 Abstract
 Materials and Methods
Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Chickens and virus

Four inbred lines of chickens were used: line N (MD resistant) possesses the B21 MHC haplotype; line 61 (MD resistant) and line 72 (MD susceptible) both possess the B2 MHC haplotype; line 15I (MD susceptible) possesses the B15 MHC haplotype. All chickens were obtained from specific-pathogen-free flocks and were free of maternal antibodies against MDV. The chickens were housed in isolated conditions in filtered-air positive-pressure ventilated rooms, at the Institute for Animal Health. All were infected at 14 days of age by intra-abdominal (IA) injection of 1,000 plaque-forming units of serotype 1 MDV strain HPRS-16, grown in chick kidney cells (CKC), and suspended in 200 µl of Dulbecco modified Eagle medium (DMEM). Control chickens were given an IA injection of the same number of MDV-free CKC in DMEM (200 µl). All chickens were examined daily from 1 day postinfection (DPI) for clinical signs of disease in general (hunched posture, fluffed and ruffled feathers, anorexia, and adipsia) and MD (paresis, paralysis and proprioceptive deficits of limbs, crop dilation, gaping, cachexia, and head tilts). Chickens were killed when their clinical signs reached a terminal endpoint in accordance with UK Home Office guidelines.

Experiment 1

Experiment 1 defined MD in the four genotypes of chickens after infection with HPRS-16. Thirty line 15I, 5 line N, 5 line 61, and 10 line 72 chickens were infected with HPRS-16. All were examined daily and clinical signs were recorded. Any chicken with MD-specific clinical signs was separated from the others to prevent harassment by cage-mates. All line 72 and 15I chickens were examined postmortem. All tissues with gross lymphomas, nerves from chickens with paresis, paralysis, or proprioceptive deficits, and both brachial and sciatic nerves from the line 15I chickens surviving at the end of the experiment (155 DPI) were examined by histopathology.

Experiment 2

Experiment 2 examined the distribution and size of lymphoid infiltration in nonlymphoid organs from the four genotypes after HPRS-16 infection. Sixty chickens from each genotype were infected and 20 from each genotype were injected with uninfected CKC. Uninfected and infected chickens were housed separately. Where possible, five infected and two uninfected chickens from each genotype were selected using random numbers generated by Excel software (Microsoft Corporation, Seattle, WA, USA). The chickens were sampled at 3, 5, 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, 42, 63, and 100 DPI. When chickens had clinical signs consistent with the terminal endpoint, these were included in the sampling and additional chickens were chosen at random to make up the required numbers (i.e., at least five infected chickens per sampling day). At postmortem examination, all tissues were examined for gross pathology. Gross pathology was defined as any abnormality; this ranged from small opaque white blemishes (particularly on heart or liver) to gross, obvious lymphomas. Samples of skin, gonads, nerves (both brachial and both sciatic plexuses), proventriculus, heart and liver, and any other nonlymphoid organs that had gross pathology were taken for histologic examination.

Tissue blocks (<5 x 5 x 3 mm) were fixed in buffered formaldehyde-saline and processed for examination using hematoxylin and eosin (HE). A scoring system was developed (0–5), based on the amount of lymphoid infiltration, for each organ (Fig. 1). An example of each score for each organ was chosen and a photomicrograph was taken and used as a standard reference. Because some organs, particularly nerves, had different amounts of lymphoid infiltration in different areas, the areas with the most infiltration were recorded. The very few nerves with type B or C pathology could not be scored in the 0–5 system and were not included in the averages. All samples taken on a given day were examined on the same occasion. Slides were examined at random (i.e., scored blind) and each section was scored after comparison with the reference photomicrographs. The results for each organ were sorted according to the line of chicken so that mean lesion scores (MLSs) for each organ could be calculated. The combined scores obtained for all organs in each chicken were used to calculate the mean total lesion score (MTLS) for each line of chicken.



View larger version (182K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 1. Examples of the histopathologic scoring system. All sections are of sciatic or brachial nerve fixed in buffered formaldehyde-saline and processed for examination using hematoxylin and eosin. Fig. 1A. Score 0: no evidence of lymphocytes. Fig. 1B. Score 1: occasional scattered single lymphocytelike cells (arrows). Fig. 1C. Score 2: occasional lymphocytes in general but some areas of lymphoid aggregation. Fig. 1D. Score 3: generalized and obvious, but mild, heterogeneous infiltration of lymphocytes. Fig. 1E. Score 4: marked, generalized, heterogeneous infiltration of lymphocytes and lymphoblasts and some evidence of the original tissue (arrows). Fig. 1F. Score 5: complete obliteration of tissue architecture by a massive, generalized, heterogeneous infiltration of lymphocytes and lymphoblasts. Bar {cong}100 µm.

 
Tissue blocks (<1 cm3) were processed for immunohistochemical examination by placing them on a drop of optimal cutting temperature (OCT) embedding medium (BDH Laboratory Supplies, Poole, UK) on a square of Whatman (Maidstone, UK) filter paper (5 cm2) and cooling in nitrogen vapor before immersion in liquid nitrogen and transferring to a -70 C freezer for storage. On each sampling day, for both MDV-infected and uninfected chickens of each genotype, sections (6–8 µm) of the same organ were cut using a Cryocut cryostat (Reichert-Jung, Arnsberg, Germany), placed on the same glass slide, and stored in a dessicator before acetone fixation (10 minutes, then air dried) and immunostaining (e.g., all liver samples from line 15I chickens, at 7 DPI, were on the same slide). Thus, sections from the same organs, but different individuals within a genotype, were subjected to identical processing and staining conditions. This was important because infected tissues could be directly compared with uninfected tissues within each genotype.

Monoclonal antibodies

Monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) were diluted using phosphate-buffered saline containing 2 mg/ml bovine serum albumin, fraction V (Sigma, Poole, UK), pH 7.4 (PBA). One hundred microliters of each MAb (or pair of MAbs) was used per slide and sections were incubated at room temperature for 1 hour in a humidified chamber. MAbs used were CT4 and CT823 (recognizing chicken homologues of CD4 and CD8{alpha}, respectively; Southern Biotechnology Associates Inc., Birmingham, AL, USA), AV2048 (recognizing a monomorphic determinant of the chicken B-cell surface antigen Bu-1), AV37 (a putative marker of neoplastic transformation expressed by cell-line cells transformed by MDV and other oncogenic viruses),47 or the appropriate isotype-matched control MAb, RSVG-MAb29 or RSVG-MAb30 (both recognizing bovine respiratory syncitial virus G [RSVG] protein; a gift from Dr. G. Taylor, IAH Compton, Berkshire, UK).

Immunohistology

All washes used PBA. For single immunostaining, the acetone-fixed sections were washed three times and incubated with the MAb of interest or an isotype-matched control MAb. They were then washed three times, incubated with a 1:100 dilution of rabbit anti-mouse antiserum conjugated to horseradish peroxidase (HRP; Southern Biotechnology Associates Inc.), and washed a further three times before identifying the peroxidase activity developed using freshly prepared and filtered 0.5 mg/ml 3,3'-diaminobenzidine-tetrahydrochloride (Sigma) in 0.05 M Tris (hydroxymethyl-methylamine), pH 7.6 (BDH). Hydrogen peroxide was added to a concentration of 0.01% just before use. Finally, slides were incubated at 37 C for 10 minutes and washed twice in PBA, once in distilled water, counterstained with Meyer's hematoxylin, washed in tap water and mounted in Aquamount (BDH).

For isotype-specific, two-color immunostaining, all sections, washes, MAb preparations, and volumes used were as described for single-color immunostaining. Slides were double-stained with AV37 and either (the isotype mismatched MAb) AV20, CT4, or CT8 (100 µl), washed twice, and incubated with two appropriate isotype-specific rabbit anti-mouse conjugated antibodies (Southern Biotechnology Associates Inc.). The secondary MAbs were conjugated to either HRP or alkaline phosphatase (ALP) and used at 1:100 with the exception of anti-immunoglobulin G1 (IgG1) HRP (1:25). Slides were then washed and incubated at 37 C for 30 minutes in freshly prepared, filtered, ALP substrate. The slides were washed again, then incubated in freshly prepared, filtered, HRP substrate at 37 C for 10 minutes. Finally, slides were washed, counterstained, and mounted as described above.

Confirmation of MDV infection

The following was carried out on samples from any chicken that had no MDV pathology. Sections were cut from all formalin-fixed tissue samples taken from each chicken and processed as described above except the processing was stopped before HE staining. Each tissue section was then scraped from the histology slide, using a new scalpel blade each time, into a 0.5-ml microfuge tube (Eppendorf-Netheler-Hinz GmbH, Hamburg, Germany). The DNA was extracted and interferon {gamma} (IFN{gamma})-specific and MDV-specific polymerase chain reactions (PCRs) were performed as described by Burgess and Davison.7

Statistical analysis

Values for the mean and standard error of the mean were used for statistical analyses. Data were analyzed by analysis of variance. When more than two lines were compared, comparisons between individual lines were made using the pooled standard error in a Student's t-test. Tissues were not analyzed on the basis of sex. All data were processed using Excel software.


   Results
Top
 Abstract
 Materials and Methods
 Results
Discussion
 References
 
PCR

All PCRs were positive for MDV regardless of the clinical or pathologic signs of the chicken from which samples were taken.

Experiment 1

Clinical signs. MD-specific clinical signs were never observed in lines N and 61. Up to, and including, 7 DPI, line 61 chickens did have ruffled feathers and scurfy skin. One line 72 chicken died from an undetermined cause at 2 DPI. Excluding this individual, the mean time to first MD-specific clinical signs in line 72 chickens was 66.0 DPI (range, 48–99 DPI) and the mean time to mortality was 70.3 DPI (range, 48–110 DPI; Table 1). Only one out of nine line 72 chickens showed any signs of recovery after separation from its cage mates and generally MD-specific clinical signs rapidly and progressively became more severe (Fig. 2). A greater proportion of line 72 chickens died peracutely than line 15I chickens (4 of 8 compared with 3 of 30). Twenty-six line 15I chickens developed MD, the mean time to first clinical signs was 95.1 DPI (range, 42–149 DPI), and the mean time to mortality was 113.9 DPI (range, 42–154 DPI). Four line 15I chickens never developed MD-specific clinical signs. Fourteen out of 30 line 15I chickens showed signs of recovery, particularly after separation. Five line 15I chickens were killed despite showing clinical improvement. Chickens that did show clinical improvement had neurologic signs only. Two line 15I chickens that had shown paralysis went on to full clinical recovery but remained cachexic. In 14 of 30 line 15I chickens the MD-specific clinical signs fluctuated.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 1. Manifestation of Marek's disease (MD) in four genotypes of chickens.*

 


View larger version (45K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 2. The clinical progression of MD in line 72 and line 15I chickens. Data are shown from 42 to 155 DPI. Birds were examined daily and their clinical signs were compared with those of the previous day. The key is shown on the figure. *Bold numbers = line 15I chickens that had type B or C neuropathology.

 
Gross pathology. The most common gross lesions in line 15I chickens were neural. Although multiple nerves were affected in 11 of 30 line 15I chickens, gross lymphomas in multiple tissues occurred in only 2 of 30 line 15I chickens, compared with 5 of 8 line 72 chickens. Two of the line 15I chickens that were found dead had no MD-specific lesions. Of the four line 15I chickens that never showed MD-specific clinical signs, three had no detectable abnormalities and one had mild nerve enlargement in one brachial and one sciatic plexus.

Histopathology. All line 72 and 15I chickens, except for the one line 72 chicken that died at 2 DPI, had typical MD microscopic pathology of heterogeneous lymphoid infiltration. Type A neural lesions occurred in all line 72 chickens and the line 15I chickens with progressive MD. Type B or C neural lesions occurred only in line 15I chickens that were recovering from, or never showed, MD-specific clinical signs (Fig. 2: bird Nos. 2, 4, 5, 18, 24, and 27). In all other respects, the histologic appearance of lymphomas from both susceptible lines was identical.

Experiment 2

Clinical signs. During the first 3 DPI the feathers were ruffled in all lines. Four chickens (three line 72 and one line 15I) died during the first night after infection. All surviving chickens, of all genotypes, were clinically normal from 4 to 18 DPI. From 18 DPI all line 61, 72, and 15I chickens had ruffled feathers and scurfy skin. All line 72 chickens showed MD-specific clinical signs, the first at 28 DPI. The first line 15I chicken had MD-specific clinical signs at 63 DPI. By 100 DPI five of nine remaining line 15I chickens had never shown MD-specific clinical signs and those that did had fluctuating clinical signs. All line N chickens remained clinically normal from 3 DPI.

Gross pathology. The gross pathology results are summarized in Table 2. Splenomegaly was evident in five of five line 72 chickens and five of five line 15I chickens at both 3 and 5 DPI and in one of five line 15I chickens at 7 DPI. At 7 DPI splenomegaly was present in five of five line 61 chickens and five of five line N chickens. At 14 DPI two of five line 61 chickens and five of five line N chickens had splenomegaly. Gross lesions in nonlymphoid organs ranged from small white spots to obvious tumors.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 2. Gross pathology in six organs* of individual chickens from four genotypes after infection with Marek's disease virus.{dagger}

 
The first gross pathology occurred at 5 DPI when enlargement of the proventriculus occurred in one of five line 72 chickens and one of five line 15I chickens. At 14 DPI mild lesions were present in the gonads in three of five line 72 chickens and two of five line 15I chickens. Obvious, but small, tumors appeared in line 72 chickens from 28 DPI but did not appear until 63 DPI in line 15I. At later time points, lymphomas in multiple organs occurred in line 72 and line 15I chickens. A minority of line 61 and line N chickens had gross pathology from 14 DPI. At 100 DPI two of five line 61 chickens and three of five line N chickens had small hepatic or proventricular tumors. Multiple organs were almost never affected in individual chickens of these lines.

Histopathology. No statistically significant difference (P > 0.10) was found in the MTLSs (Fig. 3) or MLSs (Fig. 4) between any of the genotypes of uninfected chickens at any time point, so the results from uninfected controls of the different genotypes were pooled. After infection with MDV, lymphoid infiltration was observed in all organs of all genotypes (Fig. 4).



View larger version (15K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 3. Mean total lesion scores for four genotypes of chickens after MDV infection. The mean total lesion score is derived from the lesion scores of tissues taken from skin, gonads (testes and ovary combined), both brachial and both sciatic nerve plexuses combined, proventriculus, heart, and liver. Values shown are means ± standard error of the mean. {diamondsuit}{image}{diamondsuit} MDV infected; {square}— — —{square} uninfected control. Statistically significant differences are denoted as follows: *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001. The control values are pooled from two uninfected chickens of each line. At most time points, five chickens were sampled. At 42, 63, and 100 DPI, more than five chickens were sampled from lines 72 and 15I.

 


View larger version (30K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 4. Mean lesion scores by organ for tissues taken from skin, gonads (testes and ovary combined), both brachial and both sciatic nerve plexuses combined, proventriculus, heart, and liver. Values shown are means ± standard error of the mean. {diamond}{image}{diamond} MDV infected; {square}— — —{square} uninfected control. Statistically significant differences are denoted as follows: *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001. The control values are pooled from two uninfected chickens of each line. At most time points, five chickens were sampled. At 42, 63, and 100 DPI, more than five chickens were sampled from lines 72 and 15I.

 
The MTLSs for all genotypes of MDV-infected chickens were significantly (P < 0.05) greater than those of the uninfected chickens at some time after infection (Fig. 3). In lines 72 and 15I this was evident on all sample days. In line 61 it was evident at 28, 42, and 63 DPI in line 61 chickens and at 3, 7, 14, 42, and 63 DPI in line N chickens. The MTLS of line 72 increased at a greater rate than that of line 15I (slope: line 72 = 0.28 MTLS units/DPI; line 15I = 0.10 MTLS units/DPI), and to a greater extent (mean maximum: line 72 = 16.17 ± 0.42 MTLS units; line 15I = 12.80 ± 0.78 MTLS units). The MTLS plateaued from 42 DPI in line 15I. In lines 61 and N the MTLS increased but to a lesser extent than in line 15I (mean maximum: line 61 = 7.6 ± 0.66 MTLS units at 42 DPI; line N = 8.3 ± 0.85 MTLS units at 63 DPI). In line N, the MTLS was significantly increased at 42, 63, and 100 DPI (P < 0.05), but no significant (P > 0.05) increase was found in MTLS between 42 and 100 DPI. In line 61, no significant (P > 0.05) difference was found in MTLS between 42 and 63 DPI but it decreased (P < 0.05) at 100 DPI.

Type B and C lesions were only observed in the nerves of three of nine line 15I chickens sampled at 100 DPI; two of these had gross pathology in other organs (Tables 2, 3). Within these type B and C lesions, densely packed accumulations of small lymphocytoid cells with pyknotic nuclei occurred around vascular areas of the nerve (Fig. 5). Any neural lesions in the remaining line 15I chickens and in lines 61, 72, and N were of type A. When MLSs from each organ were analyzed, the contribution of each to the MTLS varied between the genotypes. In lines 72 and 15I, all organs examined had increased MLSs (Fig. 4). Those that contributed most to the MTLS were nerve, proventriculus, heart, and skin in line 72; nerve, proventriculus, and gonad in line 15I; nerve and skin in line 61; and proventriculus and liver in line N. The values for MLSs in skin were similar in lines 72 and 61 until 35 DPI, after which the values decreased in line 61.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 3. Marek's disease (MD)-specific clinical signs, gross pathology, and histopathology in six organs of line 15I chickens at 100 days postinfection with MD virus.*

 


View larger version (142K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 5. Sciatic nerve, fixed in buffered formaldehyde-saline and processed for examination using hematoxylin and eosin. Histopathology in a line 15I chicken at 100 DPI. Type B nerve lesion, with densely packed accumulation of small lymphoid cells with pyknotic nuclei around a vascular area of the nerve (arrow). Bar {cong} 100 µm.

 
Immunohistology. All organs that were scored by histopathology, except skin, were examined at 3, 5, 7, 14, 21, 35, and 42 DPI by immunohistology. Lymphoid infiltration was present in tissues from infected chickens from lines 72 and 15I from 5 DPI and lines 61 and N from 7 DPI. In all lines these consisted of centrally located CD4+ cells with a few peripheral CD8+ cells. In lines 72 and 15I, the lesions expanded and CD4+ cells remained the majority, whereas CD8+ cells were rare and peripheral. However, in lines 61 and N, lesions remained small and at 14 and 21 DPI similar proportions of CD4+ and CD8+ cells were similar (Fig. 6a–e). From 35 DPI in line 61, and especially in line N, lesions became extremely rare and difficult to find. Bu-1+ cells were rare in all lesions examined.



View larger version (70K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 6. Immunohistology of infiltrating lesions in acetone-fixed sections of brachial and sciatic nerve plexuses in lines 61 at 7 DPI (Fig. 6a), 21 DPI (Fig. 6c), 42 DPI (Fig. 6e), 72 at 7 DPI (Fig. 6b) and 21 DPI (Fig. 6d). Bar {cong} 100 µm. Red-staining cells are CD4+. Blue-staining cells are CD8+. Fig. 6f. AV37+ cells in a line 61 chicken scattered diffusely throughout the lymphoid areas of an acetone-fixed section of proventriculus. Bar {cong} 100 µm. The nuclei of these cells are apoptotic (inset). Bar {cong} 10 µm. Serial acetone-fixed sections of liver from MDV-infected line 72 chickens. Bar {cong} 100 µm. CD4+ cell accumulations (Fig. 6g) surround pale-staining AV37+ cells (arrows) present as small aggregations in the center (Fig. 6h). Differential expression of the AV37 antigen occurred with different numbers of CD8+ cells. Both lesions were on the same acetone-fixed section of heart from a line 72 chicken. Bar {cong} 100 µm. Red = AV37+ cells, blue = CD8+ cells. Fig. 6i. Few CD8+ cells with high-intensity AV37 expression. Fig. 6j. Frequent CD8+ cells with low-intensity AV37 expression.

 
AV37+ cells surrounded by AV37- CD4+ cells (Fig. 6g, h) were present in lesions in organs from infected chickens of all genotypes but were never seen in organs from uninfected chickens. In a few lesions from line 72 and 15I chickens, relatively high proportions of CD8+ cells were present. When this occurred, the AV37 immunostaining was pale (Fig. 6j). In lines 61 and N, the AV37+ cells were scattered and their nuclei were apoptotic (Fig. 6f). By 42 DPI AV37+ cells were extremely rare in these genotypes. It was not possible to establish conclusively whether CD8+ or Bu-1+ cells were also AV37+.


   Discussion
Top
 Abstract
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
References
 
Experiment 1 defined a system for comparing relative resistance to MD in chickens of different genotypes. Experiment 2 described differences in pathology between the genotypes. MD is a complicated disease and in order to analyze our results we have divided it into phases based on clinical signs in the susceptible host. The cytolytic and latent phases were defined after Calnek9 and the tumor phases (early and late) were defined as the times that each susceptible genotype first developed clinical MD (gross lymphomas). The phases of disease in the host should not be confused with stages of the MDV replication cycle and virus gene expression. It is possible to have cytolytically infected cells in chickens that are clinically in the latent phase of MD (or even in so-called latently infected cultured MDV-transformed lymphoma cell lines).46 Organ sampling times were chosen to compare the chicken genotypes at defined times postinfection.

Only lines 72 and 15I developed clinical MD. The MD-specific clinical signs differed between these genotypes. The clinical signs were progressive in line 72 but fluctuated, or on occasion were never seen, in line 15I. The onset of these clinical signs was, on average, 29 days later in line 15I. The two resistant lines (and the few line 15I individuals that did not have clinical MD) developed subclinical MD (i.e., microscopic lymphocyte infiltration of nonlymphoid organs). From our results we rank MD susceptibility to HPRS-16 MDV (most susceptible to least) as line 72 > 15I > 61 > N.

Although each genotype had distinct patterns of gross pathology (Table 2), all had splenomegaly. This occurred at 3 and 5 DPI in lines 72 and 15I but at 7 and 14 DPI in lines 61 and N. It is difficult to explain why splenomegaly in the resistant genotypes occurred later than in the susceptible genotypes. Others1,2,6,27 have suggested that the initial cytolytic infection and associated inflammatory responses are smaller in the MD-resistant genotypes.

At the cellular level, perivascular lymphocyte accumulations (<1 MLS unit) could be observed in sections of all organs from uninfected chickens of all genotypes. However, in the skin, proventriculus, and liver of some uninfected chickens, individual lesion scores approached 3. These were mainly in older birds and may be areas of normal lymphoid accumulation,18 areas of lymphoid apoptosis,59 or an immune response to antigens from nonpathogenic agents (e.g., food or commensal microorganisms). The spleen was not included in the histologic analysis of lymphocyte infiltration because it is primarily a lymphoid organ and as such outside the scope of this study. Autonomic nerves were also not included although lymphoid infiltration into these could have been an indirect cause of the cachexia observed in those line 15I chickens with no other pathology.

The MLS, measuring organ-specific lymphocyte infiltration, and the MTLS, measuring lymphocyte infiltration into all organs examined, differed between the genotypes. This is most clearly demonstrated by plotting MTLS trends (Fig. 7). Like clinical signs, MTLSs in line 72 increased progressively. During the cytolytic phase, and early latent phase, MTLSs of line 15I increased at a similar rate to those of line 72. The MTLS then plateaued, before increasing again, at a similar rate to that of line 72 in the early tumor phase. After this the MTLS again plateaued, coincident with the fluctuating clinical signs. In contrast to line 72, nerve contributed most to the MTLS in line 15I. All line 72 and 15I chickens with progressive MD had type A neuropathology, whereas those line 15I chickens with fluctuating clinical signs, and those that recovered completely, had type B or C neuropathology. This is consistent with observations in outbred chickens suggesting that type B and C lesions are associated with lymphoma regression.24,38 The densely packed aggregations of pyknotic lymphocytoid cells in nerves with type B or C pathology represent cells in the early stages of programmed cell death and are further evidence of lesion regression.



View larger version (20K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 7. Trends in mean total lesion score relative to days postinfection in four genotypes of MDV-infected chickens. Trend lines were derived from the mean total lesion score data in Fig. 3.

 
In line 61 the MTLS increased from the cytolytic to the early tumor phase, after which it decreased. Although the MLS distribution differed between lines 61 and 72, the amount of lymphoid infiltration in skin was similar up to 35 DPI. Lymphocytes infiltrating the skin could either be MDV-infected or specifically reactive to productive MDV antigens in the feather follicle epithelium.37 Similar amounts of MDV may be shed by these two genotypes up to 35 DPI despite differences in blood MDV load28 and MD susceptibility. Several possibilities could account for the differences between line 61 and 72 in MLS: the numbers of activated lymphocytes migrating across endothelia and into tissues could be greater in line 72; lymphocytes may migrate into tissues in similar numbers and with similar affinities in both genotypes, but only in line 72 do they neoplastically transform and clonally expand in situ; and only neoplastically transformed cells that are present in line 72 cross the endothelium.

The MTLS increased from the cytolytic to early tumor phase in both lines but the rate was lower in line 61; the MTLS began to decrease in line 61 at the time gross lymphomas occurred in line 72. This suggests that effective MD resistance in line 61 occurs during both the cytolytic and tumor phases. This resistance cannot be MHC-associated because both lines have identical MHC class I and class II16,23,41 (I. Shaw and J. Jacob, personal communication). Interestingly, Vallejo et al.58 identified eight non–MHC-associated quantitative trait loci for MD resistance using a line 63 x 72 F2 cross.

In line N, a similar increase in MTLS occurred in the cytolytic phase as in lines 72 and 15I, a decrease occurred in the latent phase, and, similar to line 15I, a further increase occurred in the early tumor phase. Line N had low MLSs for nerve, heart, skin, and gonad. The proventriculus in the latent phase and the liver in the cytolytic and latent phases contributed most to the MTLS. Both organs act as secondary lymphoid tissues in the chicken.18 Lymphoid infiltration in these organs in the cytolytic phase may indicate an immune response to productive MDV antigens. This is consistent with Calnek's9 suggestion that an immune response in the cytolytic phase in resistant chickens minimizes the amount of MDV available to latently infect and subsequently to neoplastically transform T-cells. Further, because liver and proventriculus had greater MLSs in line N than 61, the immune response in the cytolytic phase may be greater in the former. The increased MTLS during the early tumor phase in line N may be either hyperplastic (possibly antigen-specific) lymphoblasts or latently infected and neoplastically transformed lymphocytes that escaped the immune response during the cytolytic phase. CD8+ cells were the most common phenotype in lymphoid infiltrations of both lines N and 61, at this time suggesting that the former is more likely.

One of the major problems in MD is the definition and objective comparison of the relative virulence of MDV isolates. To date only one objective method has been described.61 Classical MD28 affects peripheral nerves; however, more virulent MDV pathotypes have emerged61 that cause lymphomas in both nerves and other nonlymphoid organs (acute MD4,8). HPRS-16 is a well-characterized virulent pathotype causing acute MD in susceptible chickens yet the bias of lymphoid infiltration into nerves in line 15I typifies classical MD.

In contrast to the central nervous system, the peripheral nervous system (PNS) is not considered immunologically privileged per se.22,55 However, the PNS does have low MHC class I expression3,19,29,34,44 and is a site where pathogens are able to evade immune surveillance despite antigen production.44 It is logical that the PNS, a poorly regenerative oligo-cellular organ, be protected from immunopathology. This may be one reason why lymphomas are restricted to nerves in classical MD (i.e., they can develop in an environment of relatively low immune responsiveness). Notably, the nerve was the only organ in which we observed a significant increase in MLS in the tumor phase in all genotypes of chickens examined. Witter61 described an increase in the relative frequency of visceral and ocular lymphomas as the relative virulence of MDV isolates increased. Together with our data this suggests that a comprehensive study of lymphoma distribution by organ could aid in ranking the genotypes of chickens for MD susceptibility and could improve MDV pathotyping. Our work also reemphasizes the importance of standardizing host genetic background when pathotyping MDV isolates.

A major question in MD is whether or not neoplastically transformed cells occur in all chicken genotypes. The proposal has been made that the antigen recognized by the AV37 MAb is expressed by MDV-transformed cells in vivo and MDV-transformed cell-line cells but is not a lymphoid activation antigen.47 After MDV infection, AV37+ CD4+ cells surrounded by AV37- CD4+ cells were present in lines 72 and 15I (from 5 DPI) and in lines 61 and N (from 7 DPI). If the antigen recognized by the AV37 MAb is confirmed to be a marker of neoplastic transformation, our work suggests that neoplastic transformation and consequent migration of these cells into nonlymphoid organs may occur in all genotypes from the cytolytic phase, regardless of MD susceptibility. The delay in the appearance of AV37+ cells in the resistant genotypes (particularly in line N) may be because fewer cells became latently infected and then neoplastically transformed because of efficient early immune-mediated clearance of MDV.

Another issue to address is whether MD resistance (or removal of tissue-infiltrating neoplastically transformed cells) in the tumor phase is immune mediated. This is controversial.50 Payne et al.39 first proposed that immune responses to productive MDV antigens in the cytolytic phase are followed by antilymphoma responses to either MDV latent proteins or tumor antigens. Differences in the phenotypes of cells present in MD lesions give some indication. In all genotypes we studied, CD4+ cells were the most frequent phenotype found in tissue lesions during the cytolytic phase. These cells remained the most frequent phenotype in lines 72 and 15I. In contrast, in lines 61 and N, CD8+ cells increased in frequency and became the most frequent phenotype from the latent phase onwards. In those lesions with relatively large proportions of CD8+ cells (even in line 72 chickens), AV37 immunostaining was low. The CD8+ cells may control expression of the AV37 antigen or may destroy cells that express it at high levels. The MAb CT8 recognizes chicken CD8{alpha}-chain so these CD8+ cells could be classical CTLs, natural killer cells, or TCR{gamma}{delta} T cells. The AV37+ cells present in line 61 and line N lesions had apoptotic nuclei, indicating programmed cell death. This could have been in response to a death signal from a cytotoxic cell or could have been self-induced. The identity of the antigens that are targeted remains unknown; potentially they could be of viral or host origin. Further work must establish whether expression of the antigen recognized by the MAb AV37 indicates neoplastic transformation.

Although few MDV antigens have been described in latently infected or neoplastically transformed cells in MD,46 those that are present could be immunogenic. Indeed, low levels of CTL activity have been demonstrated against them.35,36 Also, antibodies against putative self-antigens expressed on MD lymphoma cells (possibly recognizing, among others, the diverse and poorly characterized Marek's- associated tumor surface antigens14,17,25,26,30,31,33,45,52,56,57,63) have been eluted from MD lymphomas.43 Thus, immune responses to non-MDV antigens are feasible even if ineffective in some genotypes.

The following model of MDV infection is proposed for the four genotypes of chickens. In all an immune response exists against productive MDV antigens in the cytolytic phase, controlling the number of latently infected or neoplastically transformed lymphocytes with the following ranking: line N > 61 > 15I > 72. An immune response to neoplastically transformed cells (recognizing MDV latent antigens or host-encoded tumor antigens) exists in all genotypes. Immunity against neoplastically transformed cells is relatively more important in line 61 than in line N because of the relatively greater load of such cells in the former. Also, an immune response exists against neoplastically transformed cells in lines 15I and 72. In the former, it allows some individual chickens to survive. In line 72 all chickens develop MD but immunity is effective in only a few individual lesions.

The bias toward CD8{alpha}+ cells in lesions was associated with MD resistance and is circumstantial evidence for immunity against developing lymphomas. However, all genotypes of chickens may be latently MDV-infected for life62 and some difference (qualitative or quantitative) must exist in antigen expression between latently infected and neoplastically transformed (latently infected) cells, allowing the former to escape the immune response regardless of the particular genotype's MD resistance.

In summary, host genotype–dependent MD resistance occurs at the cytolytic, latent, and tumor phases of MD. Cellular infiltration into organs of all genotypes seems to consist of both reactive and putatively neoplastically transformed lymphocytes. MD lymphoma regression is a real phenomenon and MD is an accessible, natural, in vivo model for biological regression of herpesvirus-induced neoplasia. Finally, our present work provides a basis for the identification of host or MDV genes responsible for resistance to MD at different phases of the disease.


   Acknowledgments
 
We would like to thank Dr. L. N. Payne for his advice during preparation of this manuscript.


   References
Top
 Abstract
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 

  1. Baigent SJ, Davison TF: Development and composition of lymphoid lesions in the spleens of Marek's disease virus–infected chickens: association with virus spread and the pathogenesis of Marek's disease. Avian Pathol 28:287-300, 1999[CrossRef]
  2. Baigent SJ, Ross LJN, Davison TF: Differential susceptibility to Marek's disease is associated with differences in number but not phenotype or location of pp38(+) lymphocytes. J Gen Virol 79:2795-2802, 1998[Abstract]
  3. Bartlett PF, Kerr RSC, Bailey KA: Expression of MHC antigens in the central nervous-system. Transplant Proc 21:3163-3165, 1989[Medline]
  4. Biggs PM, Purchase HG, Bee BR, Dalton PJ: Preliminary report on acute Marek's disease (fowl paralysis) in Great Britain. Vet Rec 77:1339-1340, 1965[Medline]
  5. Boon T, Cerottini JC, Vandeneynde B, Vanderbruggen P, Vanpel A: Tumor-antigens recognized by T-lymphocytes. Annu Rev Immunol 12:337-365, 1994[CrossRef][Medline]
  6. Bumstead N, Sillibourne J, Rennie M, Ross N, Davison F: Quantification of Marek's disease virus in chicken lymphocytes using the polymerase chain reaction with fluorescence detection. J Virol Methods 65:75-81, 1997[CrossRef][Medline]
  7. Burgess SC, Davison TF: A quantitative duplex PCR technique for measuring amounts of cell-associated Marek's disease virus: differences in two populations of lymphoma cells. J Virol Methods 82:27-37, 1999[CrossRef][Medline]
  8. Burmester BR, Witter R: An outline of the diseases of the avian leukosis complex. US Dep Agric Agric Res Serv Product Res Rep 94:1-8, 1966
  9. Calnek BW: Marek's-disease—a model for herpesvirus oncology. Crit Rev Microbiol 12:293-320, 1986[Medline]
  10. Chan MM, Chen C-LH, Ager LL, Cooper MD: Identification of the avian homologues of mammalian CD4 and CD8 antigens. J Immunol 140:2133-2138, 1988[Abstract]
  11. Crittenden LB, Muhm RL, Burmester BR: Genetic control of susceptibility to the avian leukosis complex. 2. Marek's disease. Poult Sci 51:261-267, 1972[Medline]
  12. Difronzo NL, Schierman LW: Transplantable Marek's disease lymphomas. 3. Induction of MHC-restricted tumor-immunity by lymphoblastoid-cells in F1 hosts. Int J Cancer 44:474-476, 1989[Medline]
  13. Heim ME, Kobele C: Spontaneous remission in cancer. Onkologie 18:388-392, 1995[CrossRef]
  14. Higashihara T, Mikami T, Kodama H, Izawa H, Tamura H: Detection of a new antigen associated with chicken thrombocytes on Marek's- disease lymphoblastoid cell-line. J Natl Cancer Inst 76:1085-1094, 1986
  15. Houghton Poultry Research Station: Annual report 1985–1986, Houghton Poultry Research Station. Houghton, Cambs, UK 1986
  16. Hunt HD, Fulton JE: Analysis of polymorphisms in the major expressed class I locus (B-FIV) of the chicken. Immunogenetics 47:456-467, 1998[CrossRef][Medline]
  17. Ikuta K, Ueda S, Kato S, Hirai K: Identification with monoclonal-antibodies of glycoproteins of Marek's-disease virus and herpesvirus of turkeys related to virus neutralization. J Virol 49:1014-1017, 1984[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. Jeurissen SHM, Vervelde L, Janse EM: Structure and function of lymphoid tissues of the chicken. Poult Sci Rev 5:183-207, 1994
  19. Joly E, Mucke L, Oldstone MBA: Viral persistence in neurons explained by lack of major histocompatibility class-1 expression. Science 253:1283-1285, 1991[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  20. Kaufman J: Structure and function of the major histocompatibility complex of chickens. In: Poultry Immunology. Poultry Science Symposium Series, vol. 24, ed. Davison TF, Morris TR, and Payne LN, pp 67-82, Carfax, Abingdon, Oxfordshire, UK 1996
  21. Kaufman J, Venugopal K: The importance of MHC for Rous sarcoma virus and Marek's disease virus—some Payne-ful considerations. Avian Pathol 27:S82-S87, 1998
  22. Ksander BR, Streilein JW: Regulation of the immune-response within privileged sites. Chem Immunol 58:117-145, 1994[Medline]
  23. Lamont SJ, Gerndt BM, Warner CM, Bacon LD: Analysis of restriction-fragment-length-polymorphisms of the major histocompatibility complex of 15I5-B-congenic chicken lines. Poult Sci 69:1195-1203, 1990[Medline]
  24. Lawn AM, Payne LN: Chronological study of ultrastructural changes in the peripheral nerves in Marek's disease. Neuropathol Appl Neurobiol 5:485-497, 1979[Medline]
  25. Liu XF, Lee LF: Development and characterization of monoclonal-antibodies to Marek's-disease tumor-associated surface-antigen. Infect Immun 41:851-854, 1983[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  26. Lee LF, Liu X, Sharma JM, Nazerian K, Bacon LD: A monoclonal-antibody reactive with Marek's-disease tumor-associated surface-antigen. J Immunol 130:1007-1011, 1983[Abstract]
  27. Lee LF, Powell PC, Rennie M, Ross LJN, Payne LN: Nature of genetic-resistance to Marek's-disease in chickens. J Natl Cancer Inst 66:789-796, 1981
  28. Marek J: Multiple nerven entzundung (polyneuritis) bei hihnern. Dtsch Tierarztl Wochenschr 15:417-421, 1907
  29. Massa PT, Ozato K, McFarlin DE: Cell-type-specific regulation of major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class-I gene-expression in astrocytes oligodendrocytes and neurons. Glia 8:201-207, 1993[CrossRef][Medline]
  30. Matsuda H, Kazuyoshi I, Hiroyuki M, Kato S: Demonstration of a Marek's disease tumor-associated surface antigen (MATSA) on six cell lines derived from Marek's disease lymphomas. Biken J 19:119-123, 1976[Medline]
  31. Murthy KK, Dietert RR, Calnek BW: Demonstration of CFA on normal splenic lymphocytes, Marek's disease lymphoblastoid cell lines and other neoplasms. Int J Cancer 24:349-354, 1979[Medline]
  32. Nazerian K, Witter RL: Immunization against Marek's-disease transplantable cell-lines. Avian Dis 28:160-167, 1984[CrossRef][Medline]
  33. Ohashi K, Mikami T, Higashihara T, Kodama H, Izawa H: Monoclonal-antibody to chicken fetal antigen on Marek's-disease lymphoblastoid cell-line MDCC-MSB1. Cancer Res 46:5858-5863, 1986[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  34. Oldstone MBA: Molecular anatomy of viral persistence. J Virol 65:6381-6386, 1991[Free Full Text]
  35. Omar AR, Schat KA: Syngeneic Marek's-disease virus (MDV)-specific cell-mediated immune-responses against immediate–early late and unique MDV proteins. Virology 222:87-99, 1996[CrossRef][Medline]
  36. Omar AR, Schat KA: Characterization of Marek's disease herpesvirus-specific cytotoxic T lymphocytes in chickens inoculated with a non-oncogenic vaccine strain of MDV. Immunology 90:579-585, 1997[CrossRef][Medline]
  37. Payne LN: Pathology. In: Marek's Disease, ed. Payne LN, pp 43-75, Martinus Nijhoff Publishing, Boston, MA 1985
  38. Payne LN, Biggs PM: Studies on Marek's disease. 2—Pathogenesis. J Natl Cancer Inst 39:281-302, 1967
  39. Payne LN, Frazier JA, Powell PC: Pathogenesis of Marek's disease. Int Rev Exp Pathol 16:59-154, 1976[Medline]
  40. Penn I: The role of immunosuppression in lymphoma formation. Semin Immunopathol 20:343-355, 1998[Medline]
  41. Pharr GT, Hunt HD, Bacon LD, Dodgson JB: Identification of class-II major histocompatibility complex polymorphisms predicted to be important in peptide antigen presentation. Poult Sci 72:1312-1317, 1993[Medline]
  42. Powell PC: Immunity to Marek's disease induced by glutaraldehyde-treated cells of Marek's disease lymphoblastoid cell lines. Nature 257:684-685, 1975[CrossRef][Medline]
  43. Pradhan HK, Mohanty GC, Lee WY, Patnaik B: Antibody directed against Marek's disease-associated tumor surface-antigen can be eluted from Marek's-disease tumor-cells. Vet Immunol Immunopathol 29:229-238, 1991[CrossRef][Medline]
  44. Pruitt AA: Infections of the nervous system. Neurol Clin 16:419-449, 1998[CrossRef][Medline]
  45. Ross LJN: Characterization of an antigen associated with the Marek's-disease lymphoblastoid cell-line MSB-1. J Gen Virol 60:375-380, 1982[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  46. Ross LJN: T-cell transformation by Marek's disease virus. Trends Microbiol 7:22-29, 1999[CrossRef][Medline]
  47. Ross N, O'Sullivan G, Rothwell C, Smith G, Burgess SC, Rennie M, Lee LF, Davison TF: Marek's disease virus EcoRI-Q gene (meq) and a small RNA antisense to ICP4 are abundantly expressed in CD4(+) cells and cells carrying a novel lymphoid marker AV37 in Marek's disease lymphomas. J Gen Virol 78:2191-2198, 1997[Abstract]
  48. Rothwell CJ, Vervelde L, Davison TF: Identification of chicken BU-1 alloantigens using the monoclonal antibody AV20. Vet Immunol Immunopathol 55:225-234, 1996[CrossRef][Medline]
  49. Sahin U, Tureci O, Schmitt H, Cochlovius B, Johannes T, Schmits R, Stenner F, Luo GR, Schobert I, Pfreundschuh M: Human neoplasms elicit multiple specific immune-responses in the autologous host. Proc Natl Acad Sci 92:11810-11813, 1995[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  50. Schat KA: Importance of cell-mediated-immunity in Marek's-disease and other viral tumor diseases. Poult Sci 70:1165-1175, 1991[Medline]
  51. Schat KA: Immunity to Marek's disease lymphoid leukosis and reticuloendotheliosis. In: Poultry Immunology. Poultry Science Symposium Series, vol. 24, ed. Davison TF, Morris TR, and Payne LN, pp 77-112, Carfax, Abingdon, Oxfordshire, UK 1996
  52. Schat KA, Calnek BW: Demonstration of Marek's disease tumor-associated surface antigen in chickens infected with non-oncogenic Marek's disease virus and herpesvirus of turkeys. J Natl Cancer Inst 61:855-857, 1978
  53. Sharma JM, Witter RL, Burmester BR: Pathogenesis of Marek's disease in old chickens: lesion regression as the basis for age-related resistance. Infect Immun 8:715-724, 1973[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  54. Slingluff CL, Hunt DF, Engelhard VH: Direct analysis of tumor-associated peptide antigens. Curr Opin Immunol 6:733-740, 1994[CrossRef][Medline]
  55. Streilein JW: Unraveling immune privilege. Science 270:1158-1159, 1995[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  56. Sugimoto C, Mikami T, Suzuki K: Antigenic dissimilarity of cell surface antigens of two Marek's disease lymphoma-derived cell lines. Avian Dis 23:357-365, 1979[CrossRef]
  57. Teplitz RL, Sanders BG, Brodetsky AM, Fung H, Wiley KL: Fetal-leukemic antigen of chicken blood cells. Cancer Res 34:1049-1053, 1974[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  58. Vallejo RL, Bacon LD, Liu H-C, Witter RL, Groenen MAM, Hillel J, Cheng HH: Genetic mapping of quantitative trait loci affecting susceptibility to Marek's disease virus induced tumors in F2 intercross chickens. Genetics 148:349-360, 1998[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  59. Wack A, Corbella P, Harker N, Crispe IN, Kioussis D: Multiple sites of post-activation CD8+ T cell disposal. Eur J Immunol 27:577-583, 1997[Medline]
  60. Weiss RA: The oncologist's debt to the chicken. Avian Pathol 27:S8-S15, 1998
  61. Witter RL: Increased virulence of Marek's disease virus field isolates. Avian Dis 41:149-163, 1997[CrossRef][Medline]
  62. Witter RL, Solomon JJ, Champion LR, Nazerian K: Long-term studies of Marek's disease infection in individual chickens. Avian Dis 15:346-365, 1971[CrossRef][Medline]
  63. Witter RL, Stephens EA, Sharma JM, Nazerian K: Demonstration of a tumor associated surface antigen in Marek's disease. J Immunol 115:177-183, 1975[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Request reprints from Dr. S. C. Burgess, Division of Immunopathology, Institute for Animal Health, Compton, Newbury, Berkshire, RG20 7NN (UK). E-mail: shane.burgess{at}bbsrc.ac.uk.





This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Burgess, S. C.
Right arrow Articles by Davison, T. F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Burgess, S. C.
Right arrow Articles by Davison, T. F.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS