Hi Mike,
Thanks for your comments and review of the thread to date. The question
of "B-cells - why one specificity" seems to be one for which there is no
commonly accepted answer. This may be because, as I found in the first
responses to my original posting, that most people assume the answer to be
documented, and furthermore, may not consider the matter to be of
fundamental importance (not a reflection of those participating in the
current thread!).
I myself, however, am under the impression that the more we understand
of the basics, the easier it becomes to understand the advanced questions
of the science in question. Indeed, one of the "tricks" for inviting
serendipity is being able to recognise a happy discovery when you see one -
made easier by an understanding of the basics, or fundamentals of the
field.
Andy
[SNIPPIT]
On Wed, 10 Dec 1997, Mike Clark wrote:
> In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.971209120117.977D-100000 at ccsp-23.brunel.ac.uk>,
> Andrew Louka <URL:mailto:bb95asl at brunel.ac.uk> wrote:
> > Why one B cell, one specificity? Why not have multiple specificities per
> > B cell - surely this would have been more effective (and energy efficient!).
> >
> > I'd appreciate any comments or explanations :-)
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Andy
> >
> Hi Andy,
> I've frequently thought about this problem when discussing T and B cell
> receptors with my students. Although it's always difficult to prove a
> particular hypothesis with regard to an evolutionary perspective I can make
> the following points which I think are relevant.
[Contd...]
--
url : http://www.brunel.ac.uk:8080/~bb95asl/
O-
