What is so special about thinking; after all, we all do it!

On certain two-signal perspectives of lymphocyte activation and inactivation, thymic G-quadruplexes, and the role of aggregation in self/not-self discrimination

Distinctive "two signal" paths in immunology, taken by researchers with different academic backgrounds, seem to have both contained facets of the truth. Having been influenced by education at a medical school where Almroth Wright's early contributions were not forgotten, the author's "path less followed" led to views that began to gain recognition late in the twentieth century when the intimate relationship between innate and acquired immunity became more apparent.

The real "danger" lies in the failure to confront fundamentals

Can we formulate a framework that would provide an agreed upon basis for discussions of immune behaviour? An attempt to do this is, in the end, the main goal of this essay. If you tell a physicist that you have invented a perpetual motion machine, he would not spend any time trying to reveal the flaw. Rather, he would shrug you off because in his framework, such a machine is an impossibility. However, immunologists lacking an agreed upon, preferably default, framework spend their time chasing into dead-end alleys or take refuge in descriptive empiricism. This will be illustrated using Danger theory, which ignores fundamentals to generate a framework believed to obviate the need for a Self (S)-Nonself (NS) discrimination and which is claimed to be bolstered with monogamous data (observation married to a single explanation). The arguments presented here apply to all NS-marker theories (pathogenicity, discontinuity, localization, danger, etc.).

Exploring the elements for a successful immune offense against cancer

A successful immune attack on a tumor requires two elements. First, a nonself (NS) epitope that can act as an effective target must be expressed uniquely and uniformly on the tumor. Second, the immune system must be induced to produce an appropriate ridding effector activity specific for the cell expressing that de novo displayed NS-epitope. Today, the major effort is directed toward nonspecifically increasing the horsepower of the immune system by relieving suppressive and resistance factors using checkpoint blockade. This is coupled to the hope that the cancer will display a unique nonself determinant and that tolerance to Self (S) will not be abrogated. Here, these two elements will be explored in order to see what a more defined approach to the immune system treatment of cancer entails. While a Hail Mary approach may, in the end, be our only alternative, defining the elements of a solution, attainable or not, based on basic immunology, can only be salutary.

Core principles characterizing immune function

The immune system is an anticipatory mechanism designed by evolution to protect the individual against noxious agents and harmful cellular debris. In order to recognize substances that it has never encountered, the immune system somatically generates an appropriately sized random (with respect to self and nonself [NS]) recognitive repertoire that is coupled to a biodestructive and ridding output. Consequently, a Self-NS discrimination is required in order to avoid autoimmunity. This essay is an attempt to highlight the core principles upon which this anticipatory mechanism depends in order to function.

Analysis of Paris meeting redefining the "self" of the immune system

Some ideas because of their intuitive appeal never die by neglect and survive because they are not amenable to experimental disproof. They can only be evaluated by weighing them against competing ideas and by invoking a credibility factor when used to explain observation. Most scientists would recommend ignoring such ideas, yet there is much to be learned by engaging their proponents in debate. The immune system viewed as an idiotype network, and its tweaking by the new school of "contextualists" is an example of such an idea. As chance would have it, the supporters of this idea gathered in a meeting, thereby permitting a cumulative analysis of this conceptualization. The goal of this essay is to compare the views of each of the speakers in light of a competing theory with the hope that a better understanding of immune responsiveness will emerge.

Two unresolved problems facing models of the Self-Nonself discrimination

Although the Associative (linked) Recognition of Antigen (ARA) model for a Self (S)-Nonself (NS) discrimination, now over 50 years old, is built on a solid conceptual and experimental base, two unsettled questions remain. In examining these questions, unanticipated aspects of the ARA Model itself had to be reconsidered. This essay spells out these problems and suggests possible solutions.

Rationalizing thymic selection for functional T-cells: A commentary

What are the minimum specificity requirements of a thymic selective process that establishes (1) restrictive recognition of peptide, (2) the Self (S)-Nonself (NS) discrimination, and (3) the categories of effector function? Given an answer to that question, how well does it fit with the observed selective processes in thymus where T-cells are generated? Any discrepancies between the two must be rationalized. The goal of this essay is to attempt just that.

What would Treg-cell biology look like when viewed from a rationalized perspective?

The argument that Treg cells play a role in determining the Self (S)-Nonself (NS) discrimination (i.e. tolerance) is challenged based on two theoretical constructs, the two stage-two signal model for the S-NS discrimination and the Tritope model of TCR function. The conclusions are then tested by reinterpreting a published probing set of data purporting to show that Treg cells regulate tolerance. It is concluded that the major role of suppression is to operate as a feedback mechanism modulating the magnitude of the effector response; it is not a determinant of the S-NS discrimination (i.e. tolerance).

Thoughts engendered by Bretscher's Two-step, Two-signal model for a peripheral self-non-self discrimination and the origin of primer effector T helpers

There are three questions under re-examination here that have been inspired by Bretscher's 'Two-step, Two-signal' model. First, what is the nature of the steps required in order for antigen-responsive cells to become effectors? Second, how does the immune system get started? Third and the most troublesome, what is the mechanism that relates the delivery of the two signals? To answer the first question, Bretscher proposes a pathway that I will place in another context by comparing it with what had been envisaged under the Associative Recognition of Antigen (ARA) model. The second question, how does the immune system gets started, is crucial to our understanding of the self-non-self discrimination. This problem boils down to, what is the origin of the first effector T helper (eTh) cells required to activate all antigen-responsive cells including the T helpers themselves (the primer problem)? To deal with this question, I proposed an antigen-independent pathway to primer eTh. Bretscher presents us with an antigen-dependent pathway to primer eTh. As competing models are precious in clarifying thinking and in guiding experimentation, I felt it important to reanalyse the two models and look for ways to decide between them. The third question deals with the requirement for and the mechanism of associative (linked) recognition of antigen (ARA). The concept of ARA is so compelling at both the experimental and theoretical levels that to save it, a new perspective will be introduced.

Challenging the Tritope Model of T cell receptor structure-function relationships with classical data on 'super' and 'allo-MHC' antigens

The response of the immune system to allo-MHC-encoded antigens and Mls 'superantigens' has been experimentally analysed in detail, but the data have not been coupled to a theoretical framework. It should therefore be instructive to see how well the newly proposed Tritope Model of TCR structure-function relationships deals with the signalling interactions between the TCR and the above antigens. We will pay heed to William Bateson's admonition, 'treasure the exceptions', by showing how a meaningful theory interrogates the data with the same validity that the data interrogate the theory. The concordances, as well as the contradictions, with the Tritope Model are a test of its heuristic value.