In Article <1994Sep13.163949 at opal.tufts.edu>, rjanssen_imm at opal.tufts.edu wrote:
>In article <34tjd6$755 at jhunix1.hcf.jhu.edu>, ejf at welchlink.welch.jhu.edu(Ephraim Fuchs) writes:
>Thinking along this statement, there would be no immunedefense against virally
>infected cells as well. But there is clearly an immunedefense against virally
>infected cells which do not express accessory molecules. So I think the above
>statement does not lead to the conclusion that there is no immunosurveilance.
The hypothesis, believed by many (but I don't agree 100 % with this), is
that most viruses infect "professional antigen presenting cells (pAPC)" and
that these cells are the ones that trigger the immune response.
>However, the absence of costimulatory signals is indeed a big problem for those
>who want to perform immunotherapy.
With regards to tumor-specific immunotherapy, the way out would be to
identify the tumor-associated antigen and deliver the cytotoxic T cell
epitopes (peptides or genes) directly to the pAPC.
