This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (26)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

M. T. EDGERTON, M.D.; H. A. PETERSON, M.D.; P. J. EDGERTON, M.A.

AMA Arch Surg. 1957;74(2):238-244.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

Introduction

The general purpose of this study was to learn more about the homograft rejection mechanism. We realized that previous studies were not clear as to the morphology and dynamics of grafting. Only by animal study can the variables be sufficiently controlled to draw reliable conclusions.

We selected a small mammal because of known similarities to the human, in giving birth to living young and in the existence of species individuality.

The mouse seemed ideal, since the development of inbred strains has given us individuals that are so nearly identical, genetically, that tissues may be transferred between individual isogenic mice with the same success encountered when autografting in the human. Recently, Eichwald⁸ has shown that certain isogenetic grafts from males onto females will not "take" as consistently as autografts, but in general these strains are comparable in genetic similarity to human identical twins. Thus the isograft in the mouse . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
Baltimore

From the Division of Plastic Surgery, The Johns Hopkins Hospital and The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.

Footnotes
Submitted for publication April 28, 1956.

This work was supported in part by U. S. P. H. S. Grant 2184 (C2) M&G and the W. Alton Jones Foundation.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?