In article <93197.093239FORSDYKE at QUCDN.QueensU.CA> <FORSDYKE at QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
> Has anyone noticed the subtle reevaluation of quantitative aspects of
>lymphocyte signalling recently?-of some relevence to the hypothesis that
>tolerance is some function of the number of determinant-receptor reactions at
>the cell surface:
>> (i) Williams and Beyers. Nature 356, 746-747 state: "It is generally
>thought that TCRs must be crosslinked to activate a T cell, yet how is
[...]
> (ii)Tamura and Nariuchi. J. Immunology 148, 2370-2377 state: "These
>results indicate that monovalent anti-CD3 is more efficient than divalent
>anti-CD3 in induction of IL2 production and that cross-linkage of the
>TCR/CD3 complex is not necessarily required for T cell clone activation."
>
Don, I missed this one. Was the monovalent anti-CD3 plate-adsorbed or
soluble? And if it was soluble, how can one be sure that there were no
aggregates? Admittedly these are simple-minded critiques, and I could look
up the article, but that would be counterproductive to a discussion :-)
Additionally, what is meant by "T cell clone activation?" This can be anything
from tyrosine phosphorylation of substrates to IL-2 secretion and proliferation.
Recent work from the labs of Paul Allen and Ron Germain argue that there is
a spectrum of consequences of TCR occupancy that depend on the affinity of the
TCR for the ligand. A monovalent TCR-ligand interaction might transmit *some*
of these signals.
Nevertheless, there does seem to be a reevaluation of receptor signalling.
--
Shiv A. Prasad shiv at lenti.med.umn.edu
Dept. of Microbiology pras0005 at student.tc.umn.edu
Univ. of Minnesota
