The historical postulate: Is it the basis, at the level of the system, for self-nonself discrimination?

In Silico and In Vitro Evaluation of the Molecular Mimicry of the SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein by Common Short Constituent Sequences (cSCSs) in the Human Proteome: Toward Safer Epitope Design for Vaccine Development

Spike protein sequences in SARS-CoV-2 have been employed for vaccine epitopes, but many short constituent sequences (SCSs) in the spike protein are present in the human proteome, suggesting that some anti-spike antibodies induced by infection or vaccination may be autoantibodies against human proteins. To evaluate this possibility of "molecular mimicry" in silico and in vitro, we exhaustively identified common SCSs (cSCSs) found both in spike and human proteins bioinformatically. The commonality of SCSs between the two systems seemed to be coincidental, and only some cSCSs were likely to be relevant to potential self-epitopes based on three-dimensional information. Among three antibodies raised against cSCS-containing spike peptides, only the antibody against EPLDVL showed high affinity for the spike protein and reacted with an EPLDVL-containing peptide from the human unc-80 homolog protein. Western blot analysis revealed that this antibody also reacted with several human proteins expressed mainly in the small intestine, ovary, and stomach. Taken together, these results showed that most cSCSs are likely incapable of inducing autoantibodies but that at least EPLDVL functions as a self-epitope, suggesting a serious possibility of infection-induced or vaccine-induced autoantibodies in humans. High-risk cSCSs, including EPLDVL, should be excluded from vaccine epitopes to prevent potential autoimmune disorders.

A Plausible Framework Reveals Potential Similarities in the Regulation of Immunity against Some Cancers and Some Infectious Agents: Implications for Prevention and Treatment

Different frameworks, which are currently employed to understand how immune responses are regulated, can account for different observations reported in the classical literature. I have argued that the predominant frameworks, employed over the last two/three decades to analyze the circumstances that determine whether an immune response is generated or this potential is ablated, and that determine the class of immunity an antigen induces, are inconsistent with diverse classical observations. These observations are "paradoxical" within the context of these frameworks and, consequently, tend to be ignored by most contemporary researchers. One such observation is that low and high doses of diverse types of antigen result, respectively, in cell-mediated and IgG antibody responses. I suggest these paradoxes render these frameworks implausible. An alternative framework, The Threshold Hypothesis, accounts for the paradoxical observations. Some frameworks are judged more plausible when found to be valuable in understanding findings in fields beyond their original compass. I explore here how the Threshold Hypothesis, initially based on studies with chemically well-defined and "simple antigens", most often a purified protein, can nevertheless shed light on diverse classical and more recent observations in the fields of immunity against cancer and against infectious agents, thus revealing common, immune mechanisms. Most cancers and some pathogens are best contained by cell-mediated immunity. The success of the Threshold Hypothesis has encouraged me to employ it as a basis for proposing strategies to prevent and to treat cancer and those infectious diseases caused by pathogens best contained by a cell-mediated attack.

Are There General Features of How Immune Responses Are Regulated That Can Provide Clues to How Remitting/Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis May Be Treated?

Most basic studies directed at how immune responses are regulated employ chemically "simple antigens", usually purified proteins. The target antigens in many clinical situations, such as in autoimmunity, infectious diseases and cancer, are chemically "complex", consisting of several distinct molecules, and they often are part of a replicating entity. We examine here the relationships between how immune responses to complex and simple antigens are regulated. This examination provides a context for considering how immune responses are regulated in those clinical situations involving complex antigens. I have proposed and discuss here a mechanism by which immune responses to the envisaged complex target antigen in remitting/relapsing multiple sclerosis go back and forth between inflammatory and non-inflammatory modes, potentially accounting for the course of this disease. This proposal makes predictions that can be tested by non-invasive means. It also leads to a suggestion for simple, non-invasive treatment.

Analyzing some concepts of immune regulation of the last three decades: Fostering greater research resilience despite the information overload. A personal view

There is considerable interest in whether increased investment in science, made by society, pays dividends. Some plausibly argue the increased rate of production of information results in an ossification of the canon. Reports, challenging the canon, fall by the wayside. The field thus becomes increasingly complex, reflecting not so much the reality of nature but how we investigate the subject. I suggest that focusing on and resolving the paradoxes evident within a canon will free the logjam, resulting in more resilient research. Immunology is among the fastest growing of biological sciences and is, I suggest, an appropriate case study. I examine the commonly accepted frameworks employed over the last three decades to address two major, related immunological questions: what determines whether antigen activates or inactivates CD4 T cells, and so whether immune responses are initiated or this potential ablated; secondly, what determines the Th subset to which the activated Th cells belong, thus determining the class of immunity generated. I show there are major paradoxes within these frameworks, neglected for decades. I propose how research focused on resolving paradoxes can be better fostered, and so support the evolution of the canon. This perspective is pertinent in facing critical issues on how immune responses are regulated, and to more general issues of both the philosophy of science and of science policy.The last section is in response to questions and comments of the reviewers. It brings together several considerations to express my view: the same frameworks, formulated in response to the two questions, are useful in understanding the regulation of the immune response against model antigens, against self and foreign antigens, those of tumors and of pathogens.