re "new" immune theory..

Ralph M Bernstein ralph at ccit.arizona.edu
Wed Apr 12 09:53:44 EST 1995



    ok, i've been reading the "new" immune theory talk, and wonder how it
accounts for autoantibodies and autoreactive tcrs?  not those that are a
response to damage, but simply anti idiotypic "network theory" antibodies? 
they _are_ out there.  
    
    also, stimulating the immune system via the dend cells is fine, but its
not _just_ against injury.  when dend cells see antigen they start
presenting it (hence: professional APC), and can move from the perhiphery to
the germinal centres, lymph nodes, ect.  these things continue to present
and stimulate.  this may be where a part of immunological memory comes from,
and when new dend cells presenting ag come along these may "displace" the
dend cells in the centres/nodes- but still these all stimulate lymphocytes
with pieces of peptide that the lymphocytes were not selected against.  This
seems to ignore the basic idea of selection, both positive and negative, to
_both_ t and b cells.  
    
    having an idea for a new theory is fine, but it seems to all be a part
of the immune response-this may be a part of the way the immune system
works, not _the_ way the immune system works.  after reading alot of the
postings out there, alot of people have come up with exceptions to this new
idea that i didnt think of, and i bet that there are alot more out there. 
so maybe this is just an additional way to look at _some_ types of
immunological interaction? 
 
 also, an idea to one of m.clarks posts, 

>"The problem comes when it's pointed out that we fail to make immune responses
>to the vast majority of antigens to which we are in frequent contact but which
>are not-self." 
   
     I agree with this stmt (and the idea that the "over"simplification for
undergrads, ect, is too easy to get away with-but perhaps is basically true,
while there are always some exceptions occurring), but maybe some of this is
because alot of "things"(antigens) just arent immunogenic, as we know, but
it could be that they are "crossreactive" with the "self"antigens that the
lymphocytes were tolarized _against_.


    thoughts?  
    regards, ralph



Ralph M. Bernstein
Dept of Micro/Immuno
University of Arizona
Ph: 602 626 2585
Fx: 602 626 2100



More information about the Immuno mailing list