In article <2h7qbv$95i at mserv1.dl.ac.uk> "dLee" <dLee at ccmail.llu.edu> writes:
>>A blanket statement that Immunologists are less "computer-minded" than
>other scientists baffles me a little bit. Considering the nature of
>Immunology is still, IMHO, one of the few remaining intrigues in
>science, with all of its unknowns, exceptions, contradictions, etc.,
>and I encourage non-immunologists to continue asking what may seem
>naive questions, if for no other reason than to keep us on our toes.
>But I caution the serious immunologists out there that the naive
>questions which are asked here may belie the numbers of other
>immunologists who are out here listening.
There have been a few intellectual strings on this group, unfortunately there
aren't often more than 4 contributors to a discussion. Are readers afraid to
"look stupid" by posting questions and ideas? That often happens at seminars
where only a few people question the speaker week in week out. I must confess
to not speaking up as frequently as I should. Perhaps bionet.immunology is
just the high- tech question and answer session that follows a seminar, with
all the inhibitions therein.
A thread like the nose-picking tolerance can get so ridiculous that no-one
takes it seriously. But it can also be meaningful in discussing oral
tolerance. So let's talk about that some.
Oral tolerance is not strictly "tolerance." The mice/rats do make Ab responses
following the immunization with Ag/CFA. So what's happening? Does it upset
the Th1-Th2 balance in favor of Th2's? A recent paper on oral tolerance in
EA Uveoretinitis (JI 1993. 151(10):5751. shameless plug for my advisor's
work:-) showed that serum levels of total Ag-specific Ab, IgG1, and IgG2a
weren't greatly different in fed and unfed animals, suggesting that tolerance
was not due to a Th1-Th2 switch.
Anyone care to respond to this?
Shiv A. Prasad shiv at lenti.med.umn.edu
Dept. of Microbiology pras0005 at student.tc.umn.edu
Univ. of Minnesota