摘要
目的检测近交系HFJ大鼠的肿瘤学特性。方法采用大鼠肿瘤细胞Walker-256分别接种HFJ大鼠和Wistar大鼠制作腹水瘤、实体瘤模型,观察两种动物对同一种肿瘤细胞的敏感性及免疫反应差异。结果对于腹水瘤Walker-256接种7d,Wistar大鼠有6只腹水产生为阴性,HFJ大鼠腹水产生均为阳性。继续观察至20d,可见到Wistar大鼠有3只腹水阴性(阳性率9/12,死亡2只,染色体用1只),而HFJ大鼠腹水全部为阴性(阳性率0/12,死亡2只,染色体用1只)。腹水中Walker-256细胞染色体分析,Wistar大鼠和HFJ大鼠众数变化范围均为50～62条,无显著差异。实体瘤接种7d,Wistar大鼠和HFJ大鼠均可触摸到右侧腋下有肿块产生。20d后Wistar大鼠除2只肿块消失外其他均有肿块存在并随时间延长而增大(阳性率13/15);所有HFJ大鼠腋下肿块均变软并逐渐消失(阳性率0/15)。检测各组大鼠的细胞免疫、体液免疫功能,发现正常HFJ大鼠IgM、IgA显著低于Wistar大鼠(P<0.01),IgG差异不显著。荷瘤组HFJ大鼠和Wistar大鼠IgG均高于各自正常对照组,差异极显著(P<0.01)。Wist-ar大鼠腹水瘤阳性组IgG显著低于阴性组和HFJ腹水阳性组(P<0.05),Wistar大鼠实体瘤阳性组也显著低于HFJ实体阳性组(P<0.01)。Wistar大鼠腹水瘤阳性组IgM显著低于阴性组(P<0.05),Wistar大鼠腹水瘤阴性组和HFJ大鼠腹水瘤、实体瘤阳性组IgM均高于各自对照组,且差异显著(P<0.05)。细胞免疫结果显示各组CD4+数量差异不显著;正常HFJ大鼠CD8+显著少于Wistar大鼠(P<0.05),Wistar大鼠腹水瘤和实体瘤阳性组CD8+数量较阴性组和正常对照组均显著减少(P<0.05)。各荷瘤阴性组大鼠CD8+数量均较正常值增加,除Wistar大鼠腹水瘤和HFJ实体瘤阴性组大鼠差异显著(P<0.05)外,其他均不显著;CD4+/CD8+结果与CD8+相反。结论 HFJ大鼠具有抗大鼠肿瘤细胞Walker-256的特性,腹水瘤及实体瘤均不易生长。
Objective To detect the oncology features of HFJ inbred strain rats. Methods Walker-256 was inoculated respectively to HFJ and Wistar rats to produce ascites tumor （AT） or solid tumor （ST） model, animals were observed for the sensitivity and immune response differences to the same tumor cells. Result For the Walker-256 AT team, ascites had been found in six Wistar rats and all HFJ rats at the 7th day. However, there are three Wistar rats （positive rate 9/12, dead 2, with 1 chromosome） and no HFJ rat （ positive rate 0, dead 2, with 1 chromosome） were negative for ascites at 20 d. The chromosome of Walker-256 ascites cells was analyzed, the mode of Wistar rats and HFJ rats ranged 50 - 62, there are no significant difference. For the Walker-256 STy mass can be touched at the right axillary of HFJ and Wistar rats at the 7th day. However, the masses of 2 Wistar rats （positive rate 13/15） and all HFJ rats （positive rate 0/15） were softened and dribble away at 20 d. Cellular immunity and humoral immunity of all rats were detected, IgM and IgA of HFJ normal rats were found to be significantly lower than that of Wistar rats （P 〈 0.01 ）, which IgG was not. IgG of all tumor-bearing rats was significantly higher than their normal controls （P 〈 0.01 ）. IgG of Wistar rat AT-positive group was significantly lower than the negative group and HFJ AT positive group （P 〈 0. 05 ）, Wistar rat ST-positive group were significantly lower than HFJ ST positive group （P 〈 0.01 ）. IgM of Wistar rat with AT-positive group was significantly lower than the negative group （ P 〈 0.05）, furthermore, Wistar rats with AT-negative group and HFJ rat AT, ST -positive group were significantly higher than their respective control group （ P 〈 0.05）. The number of CD4^＋ counts in each group showed no significant difference ; For the number of CD8^＋ , HFJ normal rats were less than Wistar rats （ P 〈 0.05 ） ; Wistar rats with AT and ST-positive group were less than negative group and control group （P 〈 0.05 ） ; All tumor-negative groups were higher than normal rats, but there were no significant difference, except for the Wistar AT-negative rats and HFJ ST-negative rats （P 〈 0. 05）. CD4^＋/CD8^＋ and CDs have opposite results. Conclusion HFJ rat could resist the growth of Walker-256.
出处
《四川动物》
CSCD
北大核心
2012年第4期630-634,共5页
Sichuan Journal of Zoology
基金
河北省科技支撑计划重点基金项目(No.09276426D)
河北省卫生厅医学科学研究重点课题计划(No.20100039)
河北省教育厅河北省高等学校科学研究指导计划(No.Z2010284)
