Antigenic Mimicry, Clonal Selection and Autoimmunity

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Antigenic Mimicry, Clonal Selection and Autoimmunity doi:10.1006/jaut.2000.0481, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on Journal of Autoimmunity (2001) 16, 337–340 Antigenic Mimicry, Clonal Selection and Autoimmunity Irun R. Cohen Department of Immunology, The triggering of autoimmunity by infection or immunization is often blamed The Weizmann Institute of Science, on antigenic mimicry. But the concept of antigen mimicry impinges on our Rehovot 76100, Israel understanding of adaptive immunity in general, and not only on auto- immunity. Here are some thoughts about the consequences of immune Key words: altered peptide mimicry. © 2001 Academic Press ligands, antigenic mimicry, autoimmunity, receptors, specificity Pathogenic Antigenic Mimicry epitopes, but an infectious agent can circumvent the deletion of anti-self clones and present the host with Antigenic mimicry [1, 2] is an attractive concept for epitopes that mimic host epitopes. Although a natural two reasons: it rests on a molecular truth and it seems self-epitope would never be able to find a fitting to explain the origin of autoimmunity. The antigen receptor on its own, the mimicking epitope selects and receptors of T cells and B cells recognize antigens by activates clones whose receptors are sufficiently the power of non-covalent fittings between their com- degenerate to now see and respond to a host antigen. bining sites and epitopes on antigens. Since more than The immune system may not be allowed by the one epitope can be envisioned (and demonstrated) to CST to engender self-recognition, but pseudo-self- fit any receptor combining site, any given antigen recognition is allowed. Host-mimicry by infectious receptor can recognize more than one antigen; antigen agents can explain the induction of autoimmune dis- receptors, like all biological receptors, are degenerate eases, without seeming to violate the CST. [3, 4]. Receptors are receptors because they can trans- duce signals into the cell; ligands alone have no intrinsic capacity to signal; no receptor, no signal. Altered Peptide Ligands: Medicinal Therefore, from the cell’s viewpoint ligands that acti- Mimicry vate the same receptor mimic one another biologically, no matter how the ligands may differ chemically. The immune system, like the endocrine and other signal- What if pathogenic mimicry, as described above, has ing systems, tends not to fit to chemistry, so antigenic actually triggered pseudo-self recognition leading to mimicry is a molecular fact [5, 6]. an autoimmune disease; how are we to remove the Mimicry also expresses an ideology. The classical offending clones? We can try to out-mimic them. formulation of the Clonal Selection Theory of Altered peptide ligands (APL) are benevolent mimics Acquired Immunity (CST) teaches that the receptor [10]. Autoimmune diseases, according to the CST, are repertoire must be purged of all antigen receptors that diseases caused by self-reactive clones; whether the could possibly recognize self-antigens [7, 8]; autoim- self-reactive clones have been activated by mimicry or munity is a theoretical impossibility according to the arise by mutation, a reasonable cure is to inactivate CST. Nevertheless, autoimmune diseases do occur, the self-reactive clones by inducing tolerance or and they occur with regularity in the wake of certain anergy, or to get them to otherwise change their infections, like group A strep, Treponema pallidum, behaviour. The specific key to any clone is its specific Borrelia burgdorferi, some enteric infections, or various antigen. If the pathogenic clone recognizes a self- viruses. How can this regularity be explained? One peptide, then the way to silence that clone is to tweak reasonable explanation blames autoimmune disease it with a pseudo-self-peptide that will anergize it or on molecular mimicry between infectious agents and signal it to stop destroying the disease target. APL host self-antigens [9]. The host’s repertoire, in keeping peptides are molecular mimics of self-epitopes that with the tenets of the CST, should be deleted of bind with an altered affinity to the clone’s receptor. receptors that could be triggered by genuine self- Varying the time the epitope spends in the T-cell receptor can greatly influence the behaviour of the T cell [11]. An APL with altered affinity might be able to Tel.: +972-8-934 2195. Fax: +972-8-934 4103. E-mail: neutralize the bad clone. APL peptides could thus be [email protected] seen as mimicry medicine for mimicry disease. 337 0896–8411/01/030337+04 $35.00/0 © 2001 Academic Press 338 I. R. Cohen The concept of the APL as a clonal anergizer has the serum. Hypersensitivity reactions, immediate and resulted in therapeutic trials designed to tolerize delayed, can discriminate between very closely clones; APL trials, to neutralize every last autoim- related antigens. Graft rejection is specific. Acquired mune cell, have employed prolonged treatment with resistance to infectious agents is reasonably specific. relatively high doses of APL. Unfortunately, such a Specificity emerges in polyclonality at the level of the therapeutic strategy can lead to undesirable side whole system; specificity is a collective effort. But how effects [12, 13]. The concept of antigen mimicry pro- can a population of clones act specifically, if each of vides a way for the classical CST to explain autoim- the clones are intrinsically degenerate, if specificity mune diseases, and antigen mimicry, through the cannot be reduced to the individual clones underlying APL, is proposed as a reasonable, CST-compatible the response? cure. Rather than serving the CST, the concept of In principle the answer is known, but at a deeper molecular mimicry actually undermines the CST. level the answer is a mystery. Immune specificity is not unique in its complexity or in its resistance to a simple analytical strategy. The Specificity Agonistes specificity of signal transduction is even more compli- cated than immune specificity; the path from a specific membrane receptor to the activation of a specific gene Antigenic mimicry was thought to be primarily is mediated by a bewildering network of redundant limited to epitopes that shared a noticeable degree of and degenerate signal transduction molecules. The chemical similarity; one peptide could mimic another specificity of signal transduction, like that of immune only if the two peptides did not differ too much in reactivity, emerges from a pattern of collective inter- their amino acid sequences [14]. Indeed, arguments actions [18]. Emergent properties are precisely those for mimicry are based on amino acid homologies behaviours manifested by a system when it operates retrievable from databases. Antigen agonists and as a whole; an emergent property is not evident in any antagonists were thought to share some familial particular component of the system when we examine chemistry that necessarily limited the promiscuity of each part individually. We can therefore answer the antigen mimicry. But, as we mentioned above, the riddle of immune specificity, despite antigen mimicry, basic chemistry of receptors renders them ignorant of by invoking emergence; we can say that the precision ligand chemistry; what fits, fits, irrespective of of immune specificity is an emergent property of the sequence and irrespective of self or not-self chemistry: immune system, and not an intrinsic property of this affinity is the all. Sugars and peptides and nucleic or that degenerate clone examined on its own. The acids, which share no chemical subunits, can mutually specificity of the immune response is created by the mimic, and can be seen to activate a given receptor immune system downstream of the initial antigen [15]. recognition [17–19]. The CST paradigm is accurate when it teaches that The emergence of specificity by a degenerate and the adaptive repertoire is composed of a differential redundant central nervous system is a manifest frequency of clones and that antigens are critical to the example of the inadequacy of reductionism; any process by which clones, are selected. Unfortunately, colour-sighted person can see the power of emergence the antigen receptors of clones cannot guarantee the with his or her own eyes. Each of us can easily antigen specificity required by the CST worldview. discriminate thousands of different colours, yet our The problem for the CST is that antigen receptors are retinas contain only three types of colour receptors: fundamentally degenerate, and this means that the red, green and blue. How can only three different specificity of the immune response is not granted receptors make thousands of discriminations? They automatically by an act of clonal selection. The degen- can do it because each of the receptors is degenerate; eracy of antigen receptors also means that clonal each responds with high ‘affinity’ to only a few selection cannot be entrusted to absolutely discrimi- wavelengths but also with lesser ‘affinity’ to many nate between self and not-self epitopes [16, 17]. The other wavelengths. The important feature is that the phenomenon of antigen mimicry proclaims this con- degeneracy of the colour receptors overlaps from one clusion loud and clear, the CST notwithstanding. receptor to another; different receptors can be activ- Clonal selection pushes the millstone of immunity, ated by the same coloured light. This redundant and while suffering from a lack of visual acuity. Specificity degenerate arrangement allows the three receptors to is the central pillar of adaptive immunity; how does generate complex patterns of signals, which are sent the immune system keep the edifice from crashing to the brain. The brain, in turn, discriminates between onto the self? thousands of different patterns (all emanating from different combinations of the three colour receptors) and interprets the different patterns as different col- Specificity Emergent ours [18]. Obviously, the immune system does not have a brain to read different clonal patterns, and that Although individual clones can be demonstrated to is the mystery. We simply don’t know how the emer- be less than specific, the immune response, at the gence of immune specificity works in molecular population level, is manifestly specific.
Recommended publications
  • Ch. 43 the Immune System
    Ch. 43 The Immune System 1 Essential Questions: How does our immunity arise? How does our immune system work? 2 Overview of immunity: Two kinds of defense: A. innate immunity ­ present at time of birth before exposed to pathogens ­nonspecific responses, broad in range ­skin and mucous membranes ­internal cellular and chemical defenses that get through skin ­macrophages, phagocytic cells B. acquired immunity­ (adaptive immunity)­develops after exposure to specific microbes, abnormal body cells, foreign substances or toxins ­highly specific ­lymphocytes ­ produce antibodies or directly destroy cells 3 Overview of Immune System nonspecific Specific 4 I. Innate immunity ­ Nonspecific defenses A. First line of defense: skin, mucous membranes ­skin protects against chemical, mechanical, pathogenic, UV light damage ­mucous membranes line digestive, respiratory, and genitourinary tracts ­ prevent pathogens by trapping in mucus *breaks in skin or mucous membranes = entryway for pathogen 5 secretions of skin also protect against microbes ­sebaceous and sweat glands keep pH at 3­5 ­stomach also secretes HCl (Hepatitis A virus can get past this) ­produce antimicrobial proteins (lysozyme) ­ ex. in tears http://vrc.belfastinstitute.ac.uk/resources/skin/skin.htm 6 B. Second line of defense­ internal cellular and chemical defenses (still nonspecific) ­phagocytes ­produce antimicrobial proteins and initiate inflammation (helps limit spread of microbes) ­bind to receptor sites on microbe, then engulfs microbe, which fused with lysosome ­nitric oxide and poisons in lysosome can poison microbe ­lysozyme and other enzymes degrade the microbe *some bacteria have capsule that prevents attachment *some bacteria are resistant to lysozyme macrophages 7 Cellular Innate defenses Toll­like receptor (TLR) recognize fragments of molecules characteristic of a set of pathogens [Ex.
    [Show full text]
  • The RAG Recombinase Dictates Functional Heterogeneity and Cellular Fitness in Natural Killer Cells
    The RAG Recombinase Dictates Functional Heterogeneity and Cellular Fitness in Natural Killer Cells Jenny M. Karo,1 David G. Schatz,2 and Joseph C. Sun1,* 1Immunology Program and Gerstner Sloan Kettering Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10065, USA 2Department of Immunobiology and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 06510, USA *Correspondence: [email protected] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2014.08.026 SUMMARY completely absent (Mombaerts et al., 1992; Shinkai et al., 1992). There is as yet no evidence that RAG plays a physiological The emergence of recombination-activating genes role in any cell type other than B and T lymphocytes or in any pro- (RAGs) in jawed vertebrates endowed adaptive cess other than V(D)J recombination. immune cells with the ability to assemble a diverse Although NK cells have long been classified as a component set of antigen receptor genes. In contrast, innate of the innate immune system, recent evidence suggests that lymphocytes, such as natural killer (NK) cells, are this cell type possesses traits attributable to adaptive immunity not believed to require RAGs. Here, we report that (Sun and Lanier, 2011). These characteristics include ‘‘educa- tion’’ mechanisms to ensure self-tolerance during NK cell devel- NK cells unable to express RAGs or RAG endonu- opment and clonal-like expansion of antigen-specific NK clease activity during ontogeny exhibit a cell-intrinsic cells during viral infection, followed by the ability to generate hyperresponsiveness but a diminished capacity long-lived ‘‘memory’’ NK cells.
    [Show full text]
  • LECTURE 05 Acquired Immunity and Clonal Selection
    LECTURE: 05 Title: ACQUIRED "ADAPTIVE" IMMUNITY & CLONAL SELECTION THEROY LEARNING OBJECTIVES: The student should be able to: • Recognize that, acquired or adaptive immunity is a specific immunity. • Explain the mechanism of development of the specific immunity. • Enumerate the components of the specific immunity such as A. Primary immune response. B. Secondary immune response • Explain the different phases that are included in the primary and secondary immune responses such as: A. The induction phase. B. Exponential phase. C. Steady phase. D. Decline phase. • Compare between the phases of the primary and secondary immune responses. • Determine the type of the immunoglobulins involved in each phase. • Determine which immunoglobulin is induced first and, that last longer. • Enumerate the characteristics of the specific immunity such as: A. The ability to distinguish self from non-self. B. Specificity. C. Immunological memory. • Explain naturally and artificially acquired immunity (passive, and active). • Explain the two interrelated and independent mechanisms of the specific immune response such as : A. Humoral immunity. B. Cell-mediated (cellular) immunity. • Recognize that, the specific immunity is not always protective, for example; sometimes it causes allergies (hay fever), or it may be directed against one of the body’s own constituents, resulting in autoimmunity (thyroditis). LECTURE REFRENCE: 1. TEXTBOOK: ROITT, BROSTOFF, MALE IMMUNOLOGY. 6th edition. Chapter 2. pp. 15-31 2. TEXTBOOK: ABUL K. ABBAS. ANDREW H. LICHTMAN. CELLULAR AND MOLECULAR IMMUNOLOGY. 5TH EDITION. Chapter 1. pg 3-12. 1 ACQUIRED (SPECIFIC) IMMUNITY INTRODUCTION Adaptive immunity is created after an interaction of lymphocytes with particular foreign substances which are recognized specifically by those lymphocytes.
    [Show full text]
  • Med-Pathway Zoom Workshop
    MCAT Immunology Dr. Phillip Carpenter medpathwaymcat Med-pathway AAMC MCAT Content Outline: Immunology Category 1A: Structure/Function of Proteins/AA Immune System Category 3B: Organ Systems Innate vs. Adaptive Immunity T and B Lymphocytes Macrophages & Phagocytes Tissue-Bone marrow, Spleen, Thymus, Lymph nodes Antigen and Antibody Antigen Presentation Clonal Selection Antigen-Antibody recognition Structure of antibody molecule Self vs. Non-self, Autoimmune Diseases Major Histocompatibility Complex Lab Techniques: ELISA & Western Blotting Hematopoiesis Creates Immune Cells Self vs. Non-self Innate vs Adaptive Innate Immunity Physical Barriers: Skin, mucous membranes, pH Inflammatory mediators: Complement, Cytokines, Prostaglandins Cellular Components: Phagocytes-Neutrophils, Eosinophils, Basophils, Mast Cells Antigen Presenting Cells-Monocytes, Macrophages, Dendritic Cells Adaptive (Acquired) Immunity Composed of B and T lymphocytes: Activated by Innate Immunity B cells: Express B cell receptor and secrete antibodies as plasma cells T cells: Mature in thymus, express TCR surface receptor; Activated by Antigen Presenting Cells (APCs) Direct Immune response (The Ringleaders of immune system) Major Lymphoid Organs TYPE SITE FUNCTION Fetal production of Liver 1° lymphoid cells Hematopoietic production of 1° Bone marrow myeloid and lymphoid cells Receives bone marrow T 1° Thymus cells; site where self is selected from non-self Lymph nodes 2° Sites of antigen activation Spleen of lymphocytes; clearance Macrophages (Sentinel Cells) Pattern Recognition
    [Show full text]
  • Molecular Mimicry Between Anoctamin 2 and Epstein-Barr Virus Nuclear Antigen 1 Associates with Multiple Sclerosis Risk
    Molecular mimicry between Anoctamin 2 and Epstein- Barr virus nuclear antigen 1 associates with multiple sclerosis risk Katarina Tengvalla,b,1, Jesse Huanga,b, Cecilia Hellströmc, Patrick Kammerd, Martin Biströme, Burcu Ayogluf, Izaura Lima Bomfima,b,PernillaStridha,b, Julia Buttd,NicoleBrennerd,AngelikaMicheld, Karin Lundbergb,g, Leonid Padyukovb,g, Ingrid E. Lundbergb,g, Elisabet Svenungssong, Ingemar Ernbergh, Sigurgeir Olafssoni, Alexander T. Diltheyj,k, Jan Hillerta, Lars Alfredssonl,m, Peter Sundströme, Peter Nilssonc,2, Tim Waterboerd,2, Tomas Olssona,b,2, and Ingrid Kockuma,b,2 aNeuroimmunology Unit, The Karolinska Neuroimmunology & Multiple Sclerosis Centre, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, 171 76 Stockholm, Sweden; bCentrum for Molecular Medicine, Karolinska University Hospital, 171 76 Stockholm, Sweden; cDivision of Affinity Proteomics, Department of Protein Science, SciLifeLab, KTH - Royal Institute of Technology, 171 21, Solna, Sweden; dInfections and Cancer Epidemiology, Infection, Inflammation and Cancer Research Program, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany; eDepartment of Pharmacology and Clinical Neuroscience, Umeå University, 901 85 Umeå, Sweden; fDivision of Cellular and Clinical Proteomics, Department of Protein Science, SciLifeLab, KTH - Royal Institute of Technology, 171 21, Solna, Sweden; gDivision of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine Solna, Karolinska Institutet, 171 76 Stockholm, Sweden; hDepartment of Microbiology, Tumor and Cell Biology, Karolinska Institute,
    [Show full text]
  • 030710 Molecular Mimicry in Multiple Sclerosis
    The new england journal of medicine clinical implications of basic research Molecular Mimicry in Multiple Sclerosis Hartmut Wekerle, M.D., and Reinhard Hohlfeld, M.D. Most experts believe that multiple sclerosis is an senting cells expressed only the relevant HLA-DR2 autoimmune disease in which T cells recognize and restriction molecules. Normally, in HLA-DR2–pos- attack components of the axonal myelin sheath and itive persons, antigen-presenting cells (which in- other features of the central nervous system, de- clude dendritic cells, macrophages, and B cells) ex- stroying myelin and the underlying axon. Although self-reactive T cells are present in the immune sys- tem of people with multiple sclerosis, they are also found in a quiescent state in perfectly healthy peo- ple. Their pathogenic potential is realized only on acute activation, which can occur through different mechanisms. Recent work by Lang and colleagues focused on molecular mimicry, one of the presumed 1 T-cell receptor triggers of autoimmunity. Hy.2E11 Lang and coworkers investigated the antigen- specific T-cell receptor of a particular T-cell clone Epstein–Barr Myelin basic (Hy.2E11), originally isolated from the blood of a virus peptide protein peptide patient with multiple sclerosis. The clone was se- lected for its reactivity to a self antigen — the mye- lin basic protein (MBP) — but it was later found to cross-react with a peptide analogous to part of a viral antigen, the polymerase of the Epstein–Barr virus (EBV).2 The new work shows that this dual response is more complex than anticipated. The mimicry is not simply explained by the structural similarity of the two peptides, as posited by the original model of autoimmune mimicry,3 in which a foreign antigen HLA-DR2a HLA-DR2b is sufficiently similar to a self antigen to trigger an autoimmune response.
    [Show full text]
  • Review Article Infectious Diseases and Autoimmunity
    Review Article Infectious diseases and autoimmunity Lucia G. Delogu1, Silvia Deidda2, Giuseppe Delitala2, Roberto Manetti2 1Department of Drug Science, University of Sassari, Italy 2Department of Clinical, Experimental and Oncological Medicine, University of Sassari, Italy Abstract Introduction: Autoimmunity occurs when the immune system recognizes and attacks host tissue. In addition to genetic factors, environmental triggers (in particular viruses, bacteria and other infectious pathogens) are thought to play a major role in the development of autoimmune diseases. Methodology: We searched PubMed, Cochrane, and Scopus without time limits for relevant articles. Results: In this review, we (i) describe the ways in which an infectious agent can initiate or exacerbate autoimmunity; (ii) discuss the evidence linking certain infectious agents to autoimmune diseases in humans; and (iii) describe the animal models used to study the link between infection and autoimmunity. Conclusions: Besides genetic predisposition to autoimmunity, viral and bacterial infections are known to be involved in the initiation and promotion of autoimmune diseases. These studies suggest that pathogens can trigger autoimmunity through molecular mimicry and their adjuvant effects during initiation of disease, and can promote autoimmune responses through bystander activation or epitope spreading via inflammation and/or superantigens. Key words: viral infection; bacterial infection; autoreactive lymphocyte; molecular mimicry; bystander activation; epitope spreading; autoimmune disease J Infect Dev Ctries 2011; 5(10):679-687. (Received 03 May 2011 – Accepted 29 June 2011) Copyright © 2011 Delogu et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
    [Show full text]
  • Antigen Mimicry-Recognizing Paratope
    Structural Evaluation of a Mimicry-Recognizing Paratope: Plasticity in Antigen−Antibody Interactions Manifests in Molecular Mimicry This information is current as of September 28, 2021. Suman Tapryal, Vineet Gaur, Kanwal J. Kaur and Dinakar M. Salunke J Immunol published online 3 June 2013 http://www.jimmunol.org/content/early/2013/06/01/jimmun ol.1203260 Downloaded from Why The JI? Submit online. http://www.jimmunol.org/ • Rapid Reviews! 30 days* from submission to initial decision • No Triage! Every submission reviewed by practicing scientists • Fast Publication! 4 weeks from acceptance to publication *average by guest on September 28, 2021 Subscription Information about subscribing to The Journal of Immunology is online at: http://jimmunol.org/subscription Permissions Submit copyright permission requests at: http://www.aai.org/About/Publications/JI/copyright.html Email Alerts Receive free email-alerts when new articles cite this article. Sign up at: http://jimmunol.org/alerts The Journal of Immunology is published twice each month by The American Association of Immunologists, Inc., 1451 Rockville Pike, Suite 650, Rockville, MD 20852 Copyright © 2013 by The American Association of Immunologists, Inc. All rights reserved. Print ISSN: 0022-1767 Online ISSN: 1550-6606. Published June 3, 2013, doi:10.4049/jimmunol.1203260 The Journal of Immunology Structural Evaluation of a Mimicry-Recognizing Paratope: Plasticity in Antigen–Antibody Interactions Manifests in Molecular Mimicry Suman Tapryal,*,1 Vineet Gaur,*,1 Kanwal J. Kaur,* and Dinakar M. Salunke*,† Molecular mimicry manifests antagonistically with respect to the specificity of immune recognition. However, it often occurs because different Ags share surface topologies in terms of shape or chemical nature.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Herpes Simplex Virus Type 1 Infection in Demyelination of the Central Nervous System
    International Journal of Molecular Sciences Review The Role of Herpes Simplex Virus Type 1 Infection in Demyelination of the Central Nervous System Raquel Bello-Morales 1,2,* , Sabina Andreu 1,2 and José Antonio López-Guerrero 1,2 1 Departamento de Biología Molecular, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Cantoblanco, 28049 Madrid, Spain; [email protected] (S.A.); [email protected] (J.A.L.-G.) 2 Centro de Biología Molecular Severo Ochoa, CSIC-UAM, Cantoblanco, 28049 Madrid, Spain * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 30 June 2020; Accepted: 15 July 2020; Published: 16 July 2020 Abstract: Herpes simplex type 1 (HSV-1) is a neurotropic virus that infects the peripheral and central nervous systems. After primary infection in epithelial cells, HSV-1 spreads retrogradely to the peripheral nervous system (PNS), where it establishes a latent infection in the trigeminal ganglia (TG). The virus can reactivate from the latent state, traveling anterogradely along the axon and replicating in the local surrounding tissue. Occasionally, HSV-1 may spread trans-synaptically from the TG to the brainstem, from where it may disseminate to higher areas of the central nervous system (CNS). It is not completely understood how HSV-1 reaches the CNS, although the most accepted idea is retrograde transport through the trigeminal or olfactory tracts. Once in the CNS, HSV-1 may induce demyelination, either as a direct trigger or as a risk factor, modulating processes such as remyelination, regulation of endogenous retroviruses, or molecular mimicry. In this review, we describe the current knowledge about the involvement of HSV-1 in demyelination, describing the pathways used by this herpesvirus to spread throughout the CNS and discussing the data that suggest its implication in demyelinating processes.
    [Show full text]
  • Butyrophilin, a Milk Protein, Modulates the Encephalitogenic T Cell Response to Myelin Oligodendrocyte Glycoprotein in Experimental Autoimmune Encephalomyelitis1
    Butyrophilin, a Milk Protein, Modulates the Encephalitogenic T Cell Response to Myelin Oligodendrocyte Glycoprotein in Experimental Autoimmune Encephalomyelitis1 Andreas Stefferl,2*† Anna Schubart,2* Maria Storch,2†‡ Aminullah Amini,§ Ian Mather,§ Hans Lassmann,† and Christopher Linington3* Experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE) induced by sensitization with myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein (MOG) is a T cell-dependent autoimmune disease that reproduces the inflammatory demyelinating pathology of multiple sclerosis. We report that an encephalitogenic T cell response to MOG can be either induced or alternatively suppressed as a consequence of immunological cross-reactivity, or “molecular mimicry” with the extracellular IgV-like domain of the milk protein butyrophilin (BTN). In the Dark Agouti rat, active immunization with native BTN triggers an inflammatory response in the CNS characterized by the formation of scattered meningeal and perivascular infiltrates of T cells and macrophages. We demonstrate that this pathology is mediated by a MHC class II-restricted T cell response that cross-reacts with the MOG peptide sequence 76–87, IGEGKVALRIQN (identities underlined). Conversely, molecular mimicry with BTN can be exploited to suppress disease activity in MOG-induced EAE. We demonstrate that not only is EAE mediated by the adoptive transfer of MOG74–90 T cell lines markedly ameliorated by i.v. treatment with the homologous BTN peptide, BTN74–90, but that this protective effect is also seen in actively induced disease following transmucosal
    [Show full text]
  • Theories of Antibodies Production
    THEORIES OF ANTIBODIES PRODUCTION 1. Instructive Theories a. Direct Template Theory b. Indirect Template Theory 2. Selective Theories a. Natural Selection Theory b. Side Chain Theory c. Clonal Selection Theory d. Immune Network Theory INSTRUCTIVE THEORIES Instructive theories suggest that an immunocompetent cell is capable of synthesizing antibodies of all specificity. The antigen directs the immunocompetent cell to produce complementary antibodies. According to these theories the antigen play a central role in determining the specificity of antibody molecule. Two instructive theories are postulated as follows: Direct template theory: This theory was first postulated by Breinl and Haurowitz (1930). They suggested that a particular antigen or antigenic determinants would serve as a template against which antibodies would fold. The antibody molecule would thereby assume a configuration complementary to antigen template. This theory was further advanced as Direct Template Theory by Linus Pauling in 1940s. Indirect template theory: This theory was first postulated by Burnet and Fenner (1949). They suggested that the entry of antigenic determinants into the antibody producing cells induced a heritable change in these cells. A genocopy of the antigenic determinant was incorporated in genome of these cells and transmitted to the progeny cells. However, this theory that tried to explain specificity and secondary responses is no longer accepted. SELECTIVE THEORIES Selective theories suggest that it is not antigen, but the antibody molecule that play a central role in determining its specificity. The immune system already possess pre-formed antibodies of different specificities prior to encounter with an antigen. Three selective theories were postulated as follows: Side chain theory: This theory was proposed by Ehrlich (1898).
    [Show full text]
  • A Series of Adaptive Models Inspired by the Acquired Immune System
    A Series of Adaptive Models Inspired by the Acquired Immune System JASON BROWNLEE Technical Report 070227A Complex Intelligent Systems Laboratory, Centre for Information Technology Research, Faculty of Information Communication Technology, Swinburne University of Technology Melbourne, Australia [email protected] Abstract-The acquired immune system is capable of the presented series of adaptive models as a novel specialising a defence of an organism in response to the its hierarchal framework for which existing and future antigenic environment. This complex biological system possess acquired immunity inspired adaptive models may be interesting information processing features such as learning, interpreted and related. memory, and the ability to generalize. The clonal selection theory is a cornerstone of modern biology in understanding the acquired II. PRINCIPLE COMPONENTS immune system from the perspective of B-lymphocyte cells and This section lists a series of principles (operators or antibody diversity. This work presents a series of computational mechanisms) that are sufficiently low in complexity to adaptive systems inspired by features of the biological immune be analysed independently. It is expected that the system and the clonal selection theory in particular. Starting with mechanisms listed in this section may act as component basic clonal operators as principle components, models are features in larger adaptive models. Operators are presented in increasing complexity from canonical clonal assigned a notation of O# and
    [Show full text]