title: Interleukin 2-regulated in vitro antibody production following a single spinal manipulative treatment in normal subjects.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Our recent investigations have demonstrated that cell cultures from subjects, who received a single spinal manipulative treatment in the upper thoracic spine, show increased capacity for the production of the key immunoregulatory cytokine, interleukin-2. However, it has not been determined if such changes influence the response of the immune effector cells. Thus, the purpose of the present study was to determine whether, in the same subjects, spinal manipulation-related augmentation of the in vitro interleukin-2 synthesis is associated with the modulation of interleukin 2-dependent and/or interleukin-2-induced humoral immune response (antibody synthesis).
  
  
  METHODS
  A total of seventy-four age and sex-matched healthy asymptomatic subjects were studied. The subjects were assigned randomly to: venipuncture control (n = 22), spinal manipulative treatment without cavitation (n = 25) or spinal manipulative treatment associated with cavitation (n = 27) groups. Heparinized blood samples were obtained from the subjects before (baseline) and then at 20 minutes and 2 hours post-treatment. Immunoglobulin (antibody) synthesis was induced in cultures of peripheral blood mononuclear cells by stimulation with conventional pokeweed mitogen or by application of human recombinant interleukin-2. Determinations of the levels of immunoglobulin G and immunoglobulin M production in culture supernatants were performed by specific immunoassays.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The baseline levels of immunoglobulin synthesis induced by pokeweed mitogen or human recombinant interleukin-2 stimulation were comparable in all groups. No significant changes in the production of pokeweed mitogen-induced immunoglobulins were observed during the post-treatment period in any of the study groups. In contrast, the production of interleukin-2 -induced immunoglobulin G and immunoglobulin M was significantly increased in cultures from subjects treated with spinal manipulation. At 20 min post-manipulation, immunoglobulin G synthesis was significantly elevated in subjects who received manipulation with cavitation, relative to that in cultures from subjects who received manipulation without cavitation and venipuncture alone. At 2 hr post-treatment, immunoglobulin M synthesis was significantly elevated in subjects who received manipulation with cavitation relative to the venipuncture group. There were no quantitative alterations within the population of peripheral blood B or T lymphocytes in the studied cultures.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Spinal manipulative treatment does not increase interleukin-2 -dependent polyclonal immunoglobulin synthesis by mitogen-activated B cells. However, antibody synthesis induced by interleukin-2 alone can be, at least temporarily, augmented following spinal manipulation. Thus, under certain physiological conditions spinal manipulative treatment might influence interleukin-2 -regulated biological responses.
authors.affiliation: Professor and Chair, Department of Pathology and Microbiology, Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College, Canada. sinjeyan@cmcc.ca.
authors.forename: Julita A
authors.initials: JA
authors.lastname: Teodorczyk-Injeyan
authors.forename: Marion
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: McGregor
authors.forename: Richard
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Ruegg
authors.forename: H Stephen
authors.initials: HS
authors.lastname: Injeyan
references.citation: Trends Immunol. 2001 Jan;22(1):2-5
references.pmid: 11286675
references.citation: J Immunol. 1986 Apr 1;136(7):2463-9
references.pmid: 3005412
references.citation: Clin Immunol Immunopathol. 1994 Sep;72(3):373-9
references.pmid: 7520376
references.citation: J Immunol. 1984 Nov;133(5):2442-5
references.pmid: 6434631
references.citation: Immunol Today. 2000 Jun;21(6):281-9
references.pmid: 10825740
references.citation: J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2006 Jan;29(1):14-21
references.pmid: 16396725
references.citation: Spine J. 2002 Sep-Oct;2(5):357-71
references.pmid: 14589467
references.citation: J Exp Med. 1993 Nov 1;178(5):1473-81
references.pmid: 8228801
references.citation: J Immunol. 1993 Apr 15;150(8 Pt 1):3215-23
references.pmid: 8468466
references.citation: J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 1998 Jan;57(1):1-9
references.pmid: 9600191
references.citation: Immunology. 1986 May;58(1):31-5
references.pmid: 3486819
references.citation: Rev Physiol Biochem Pharmacol. 1997;130:1-328
references.pmid: 9019119
references.citation: Blood. 1998 Jan 1;91(1):173-80
references.pmid: 9414282
references.citation: J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1994 May;17(4):219-27
references.pmid: 8046277
references.citation: J Clin Invest. 1988 Jul;82(1):316-21
references.pmid: 2839549
references.citation: J Trauma. 1992 Aug;33(2):171-8
references.pmid: 1507277
references.citation: Acta Pathol Microbiol Immunol Scand C. 1987 Aug;95(4):167-72
references.pmid: 3499752
references.citation: Burns. 1989 Aug;15(4):241-7
references.pmid: 2527518
references.citation: Cell Immunol. 1986 Mar;98(1):1-7
references.pmid: 3017579
references.citation: FASEB J. 2003 Dec;17(15):2176-83
references.pmid: 14656978
references.citation: Chiropr Osteopat. 2008 May 28;16:5
references.pmid: 18507834
references.citation: Immunol Today. 1985 Sep;6(9):258-9
references.pmid: 25290563
references.citation: J Immunol. 1987 Dec 15;139(12):4109-15
references.pmid: 3121730