A biological context for the self-nonself discrimination and the regulation of effector class by the immune system

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.

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.

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.

B cell TLRs and induction of immunoglobulin class-switch DNA recombination

Toll-like receptors (TLRs) are a family of conserved pattern recognition receptors (PRRs). Engagement of B cell TLRs by microbe-associated molecular patterns (MAMPs) induces T-independent (TI) antibody responses and plays an important role in the early stages of T-dependent (TD) antibody responses before specific T cell help becomes available. The role of B cell TLRs in the antibody response is magnified by the synergy of B cell receptor (BCR) crosslinking and TLR engagement in inducing immunoglobulin (Ig) class switch DNA recombination (CSR), which crucially diversifies the antibody biological effector functions. Dual BCR/TLR engagement induces CSR to all Ig isotypes, as directed by cytokines, while TLR engagement alone induces marginal CSR. Integration of BCR and TLR signaling results in activation of the canonical and non-canonical NF-κB pathways, induction of activation-induced cytidine deaminase (AID) and germline transcription of IgH switch (S) regions. A critical role of B cell TLRs in CSR and the antibody response is emphasized by the emergence of several TLR ligands as integral components of vaccines that greatly boost humoral immunity in a B cell-intrinsic fashion.

Ten experiments that would make a difference in understanding immune mechanisms

Jacques Monod used to say, "Never trust an experiment that is not supported by a good theory." Theory or conceptualization permits us to put order or structure into a vast amount of data in a way that increases understanding. Validly competing theories are most useful when they make testably disprovable predictions. Illustrating the theory-experiment interaction is the goal of this exercise. Stated bleakly, the answers derived from the theory-based experiments described here would impact dramatically on how we understand immune behavior.

Why Aire? Compensating for late bloomers

The question under analysis in this commentary is, what was the evolutionary selection pressure that necessitated the ectopic expression of a subset of peripheral self-antigens in the thymus and by peripheral APC? The suggestion is that antigen expression is delayed until after the immune system is responsive.

On the critique by Colin Anderson of 'A reply to Dembic: on an end to the beginning of mis-understanding the immune response'

My proposal of a set of postulates that can be used to guide computer modeling has understandably met with significant criticism at two levels, semantic and conceptual. The major source of contention is my assumption that the sorting of the paratopic repertoire is both necessary and sufficient to explain the evolutionarily selected mechanism for the self-nonself discrimination. While 'necessary' is agreed upon, 'sufficient' is debatable as this commentary illustrates. My essay is in defense of 'sufficiency'.

A reply to Dembic: on an end to the beginning of misunderstanding the immune response

We all agree that dealing with the complexity and volume of the data necessitates the use of computer modelling. This in turn requires a heuristic conceptual framework to guide this modelling. The first attempt to do this by Cohn has been criticized by Dembic as being severely lacking. This commentary deals with his criticism of the framework to show why Cohn's postulates, in fact, remain unchallenged.

On the opposing views of the self-nonself discrimination by the immune system

Today's generally accepted view of the self-nonself discrimination was voiced by Miller(1) in 2004 in a thought-provoking essay. In spite of its popularity, this position has its limitations, which are analyzed here with a view toward establishing an interactive discussion that hopefully will culminate in agreed upon decisive experiments. The inadequacies of Miller's view of the self-nonself discrimination and their resolution under the associative recognition of antigen model are analyzed.

How does the immune response get started?

An effective adaptive immune response requires the prior induction of the regulatory effector T-helper (eTh). There are two competing models of how this cell is induced to effectors. Under the Associative Recognition of Antigen (ARA) or "two signal" model, the T-helper requires eTh in order to be induced to eTh, an "autocatalytic" process. Under the "costimulation" model eTh are induced by an antigen-unspecific signal derived from an "activated" APC. Under the ARA model the problem of the origin of the primer eTh is posed. A nonself antigen-independent pathway to eTh is proposed as well as an experiment to reveal its existence. In the costimulation framework no primer eTh need be postulated but it lacks a mechanism that, in the absence of ARA, accounts for the self-nonself discrimination and the determination of effector class.

A rationalized set of default postulates that permit a coherent description of the immune system amenable to computer modeling

This discussion delineates and rationalizes a set of postulates that permit a coherent understanding of immune function. Although analytical tools such as mathematics and computer modeling have become very popular, simulation and data mining in the absence of a conceptual framework cannot increase understanding. The goal of this essay is to provide the foundation for a discussion that has as its goal the formulation of an agreed upon set of default postulates. Such a set is required to guide the algorithms needed to analyze complex immune behavior.

What roles do regulatory T cells play in the control of the adaptive immune response?

The immune system, like many systems responsive to specific stimuli, requires feedback regulation. The key regulatory element determining antigen-specific responsiveness is the effector T helper. As the response tends to overshoot, a feedback control of the magnitude of the response is critical to avoid immunopathology. This is the proposed role of the effector T suppressor (T(s)). The reasons for this interpretation of the data are discussed as are the reasons that the competing postulate is ruled out, namely that T(s) function in determining the self-non-self-discrimination. The regulatory T cell family consists of two lineages, T helpers and T(s). Differentiated derivatives of the T helper lineage drive the expression and amplification of specific classes of defensive effector cells. T(s) feedback to limit the magnitude of the process so that debilitating immunopathology is acceptably infrequent.

The Tritope Model for restrictive recognition of antigen by T-cells II. Implications for ontogeny, evolution and physiology

Based on the Tritope Model of the TCR [Cohn, M., 2005c. The Tritope Model for restrictive recognition of antigen by T-cells. I. What assumptions about structure are needed to explain function? Mol. Immunol. 42, 1419-1443], a set of functional and evolutionary problems surrounding restrictive recognition of antigen are discussed. These include the origin of allele-specific recognition, the selection pressures for polygeneism and polymorphism, the TCR signaling interactions, the centrality of effector T-helper (eTh)-dependence for activation, the role of haplotype exclusion, "nonclassical" MHC-elements, alloreactivity versus xenoreactivity, etc. Further, a set of observations believed to support the Standard Model are reinterpreted.

An in depth analysis of the concept of "polyspecificity" assumed to characterize TCR/BCR recognition

A workshop group developed the concept of a "polyspecific" TCR/BCR in the framework of today's consensus model. They argue that the individual TCR/BCR combining site is composed of a packet of specificities randomly plucked from the repertoire, hence it is "polyspecific." This essay analyzes the conclusions of the workshop and suggests an alternative. "Polyspecificity" must be dissected into its two component parts, specificity and degeneracy. The TCR and the BCR must be treated differently because the TCR recognizes allele-specifically the MHC-encoded restricting element (R) that serves as the platform presenting peptide (P). Only the anti-P paratope of the TCR behaves analogously to the BCR paratope. The two paratopes are selected to recognize a shape-determinant referred to as an epitope or ligand. The paratope is functionally unispecific in recognition, not polyspecific, with respect to shape; it is degenerate in recognition with respect to chemistry. The recognized shape-determinant can be the product of many chemically different substances, peptide, carbohydrate, lipid, steroid, nucleic acid, etc. Such a degenerate set is functionally treated by the paratope as one shape/epitope/ligand and, in no sense, can a paratope recognizing such a degenerate set be described as "polyspecific." Degeneracy and specificity are concepts that must be distinguished. The two positions are analyzed in this essay, the experiments used to support the view that the paratope of the TCR/BCR is polyspecific, are reinterpreted, and an alternative framework with its accompanying nomenclature, is presented.

Does the signal for the activation of T cells originate from the antigen-presenting cell or the effector T-helper?

The present view is that the antigen-presenting cell (APC) processes and presents simultaneously on its surface several different antigens that are displayed randomly (with respect to their being Self or Nonself) as peptide-MHC complexes. The naive T-cell interacting with its ligand on the APC is activated by "co-stimulation," the first step on the pathway to effectors. This view ignores the requirement for associative recognition of antigen (ARA) in mediating both the Self-Nonself discrimination and the regulation of effector class. The introduction of ARA as a requirement for these two decision functions highlights a critical role for the effector T-helper (eTh) and necessitates rethinking the contribution of the APC.

Tissue Homeostasis and Immunity – More on Models

This article continues the ongoing debate around models of the immune system. Earlier contributors have paid much attention to the various processes that lead to adaptive immune system aggression or tolerance. They have often based their discussions around facts that have been established by experimental investigation. However, both the observation and interpretation of these facts have been influenced by the function--or system goal--that is believed to have generated them. The perception of this function (of all or part of the immune system) is influenced by long established theories in immunology (e.g. horror autotoxicus, clonal deletion in utero, pathogen elimination, clonal selection, auto-immunity and so on) which, for many, have become enshrined as facts. One function that has had less consideration and has not been extensively investigated is the maintenance of tissue homeostasis. When the immune system is viewed from this perspective, the facts invite alternative interpretations. Whilst this perspective may not necessarily be the only valid one, let alone a correct one, viewing things this way--at least briefly--might help to expose hidden assumptions. It also emphasizes that the immune system is a system and, as such, it can by analysed through the principles of general systems theory.

On ‘Credo 2004’ as Viewed Under the ‘Development-Context’ Model of Colin Anderson

In analysing the Zinkernagel and Hengartner's 'Credo 2004,' Anderson introduces his 'development-context model' for the immunity-tolerance discrimination. He compares this model with the 'geographical model of Credo 2004' and our 'time-based two-signal model'. The discussion here deals with the advantages and limitations of the Anderson model considered largely at the level of principle. A meaningful discussion requires that we agree on the principle which separates the pathway of the effector output into two decision steps, the sorting of the repertoire and the regulation of effector class. The mechanism for the sorting of the repertoire is what might be referred to as the Self-Nonself discrimination. The black box approach, antigen-in, effector response-out, is what is referred to as the immunity-tolerance discrimination which includes the sorting of the repertoire. If this point of principle is accepted then we are left with a 'time-based two signal default model'.