1. Genes and Antibodies (Lederberg 1959)
![]() |
Do antigens bear instructions for antibody specificity, or do they select cell lines that arise by mutation? By Joshua Lederberg. Science (1959) 129, 1649-1653 (With copyright permission from the author and the publishers of Science, the AAAS) [Colouring, bold font and comments in square brackets by DRF. Italics are as in original, unless otherwise stated.] |
Joshua Lederberg (1925-2008) |
1. Antibody Globulin
2. Gene for Globulin Synthesis
3. Genic Diversity of Precursor Cells
4. Hypermutability
5. Spontaneous Production of Antibody
6. Induction of Immune Tolerance
7. Excitation of Massive Antibody Formation
8. Proliferation of Mature Cells
9. Persistence of Clones
An antibody is a specific globulin which appears in the serum of an animal after the introduction of a foreign substance, an antigen (1). Each of the many globulins is specified by its reaction with a particular antigen (2). Our present concern is to formulate a plausible mechanism for the role of the antigen in evoking large amounts of a specific complementary globulin. An important element of any theory of antibody formation is its interpretation of self-recognition, the means by which an organism discriminates its own constituents from the foreign substances which are valid stimuli of the immune response. Recent speculation about antibody formation has been dominated by instructive theories which suppose that the antigen conveys the instructions for the specificity of the globulin synthesized under its governance [antigen directs]. Elective theories date from Ehrlich (9) and have been revived principally by Jerne (10), Talmage (2, 11) and Burnet (12). These postulate that the information required to synthesize a given antibody is already inherent in the organism before the antigenic stimulus is received, and the stimulus then functions to stimulate that mechanism electively [antigen selects]. Jerne had proposed an elective transport of antibody-forming templates to functioning sites; Talmage and Burnet have implicitly proposed an elective function based on cellular selection. The details which distinguish the various proposals are pointed out in the following discussion. Immunology does not suffer from a lack of experimental data, but still some of the most elementary questions are undecided, and it is not yet possible to choose between instructive and elective theories. However, the latter have had so little expression in the past decades that a detailed exposition may serve a useful function, if only as a target for experimental attack. This is an attempt to formulate an elective theory on the basis of genetic doctrines developed in studies of microbial populations. |
Table 1. Nine propositions. Al. The stereospecific segment of each antibody globulin is determined by a unique sequence of amino acids. A2. The cell making a given antibody has a correspondingly unique sequence of nucleotides in a segment of its chromosomal DNA: its "gene for globulin synthesis." A3. The genic diversity of the precursors of antibody-forming cells arises from a high rate of spontaneous mutation during their lifelong proliferation. A4. This hypermutability consists of the random assembly of the DNA of globulin gene during certain stages of cellular proliferation. A5. Each cell, as it begins to mature, spontaneously produces small amounts of the antibody corresponding to its own genotype. A6. The immature antibody-forming cell is hypersensitive to an antigen-antibody combination: it will be suppressed if it encounters the homologous antigen at this time. A7. The mature antibody-forming cell is reactive to an antigen-antibody combination: it will be stimulated if it first encounters the homologous antigen at this time. The stimulation comprises the acceleration of protein synthesis and the cytological maturation which mark a "plasma cell". A8. Mature cells proliferate extensively under antigenic stimulation but are genetically stable and therefore generate large clones genotypically preadapted to produce the homologous antibody. A9. These clones tend to persist after the disappearance of the antigen, retaining their capacity to react promptly to its later reintroduction. |
Of the nine propositions here, only number 5 is central to elective theory. The first four are special postulates chosen as an extreme but self-consistent set; however, they might well be subject to denial or modification without impairing the validity of the elective approach. The last four propositions are stated to account for the general features of antibody formation in cellular terms and may be equally applicable to instructive and elective theories. If this theory can be defended, and I know of no fatal refutation of it, then clearly elective theories of antibody formation, perhaps less doctrinaire in detail, should have a place in further experimental design, each proposition being evaluated on its own merits. I am particularly indebted to Burnet (13) for this formulation, but Burnet should not be held responsible for some elaborations on his original proposal, especially in propositions 1 through 4. A connected statement of the nine propositions is given in Table 1, and each discussed in detail in the following sections. |
Al. The stereospecific segment of each antibody globulin is determined by a unique sequence of amino acids. This assertion contradicts the more popular notion, and the usual basis of instructive hypotheses, of a uniform sequence subject to differential folding. The chemical evidence is far from decisive. For example, Karush (14) rejects this proposition, not on analytical evidence, but on the cogent argument that miscellaneous antigenic compounds can scarcely convey instructions for sequence. But if instructive-sequence is implausible, this perhaps argues against instruction rather than [against] differential sequence [preexisting differences in primary sequence]. Karush has also demonstrated the remarkable stability of antibody through cycles of exposure to denaturing concentrations of urea. He attributes the structural continuity to stabilizing disulfide linkages, but determinant amino acid sequences may also be involved. Elective antibody formation is of course equally compatible with sequence or folding. In such a theory, the mechanism of assembly does not have to be specified, so long as the product (the prospective antibody) recognizes -- that is, reacts with -- the antigen. Differential sequence is proposed (i) to stress the ambiguity of present evidence and (ii) as being more closely analogous to current conceptions of genically controlled specificity of other proteins (15). The direct analysis of antibody structure by physicochemical methods has been equivocal. The fractionation of globulins by partition chromatography (16) might be interpreted by differential exposure of phenolic, amino, and carboxyl groups rather than differences in essential composition. Characterization of amino acid composition has given sharply different results with rabbit globulins, on the one hand, and equine and human globulins, on the other. Rabbit globulins, including various antibodies, apparently have a uniform N-terminal sequence, so far identified for five residues as (17):
Various antibodies were, furthermore, indistinguishable in over-all composition (18). Any chemical differences would then have to attach to a central, differential segment. This possibility is made more tangible by Porter's recent finding (19) that rabbit antibody globulin could be split by crystalline papain into three fragments. One of these was crystallizable (and presumably homogeneous), devoid of antibodyactivity, but equivalent as an antigen to the intact globulin [i.e. react with antiglobulin antibody]. The remaining fractions were more heterogeneous and retained the antigen-combining specificity of the intact antibody. As these fractions may well correspond to the differential segments, their further immunological and chemical analysis will be of extraordinary interest. In contrast to the uniformity of rabbit globulins, normal and antibody globulins of horse serum proved to be grossly heterogeneous but equally so, a wide variety of N-terminal groups being found in all preparations (20). This merely confirms the concept of the plurality of antibodies evoked by a given antigen, which have in common only the general properties of normal gamma globulins and the capacity of reacting with the evoking antigen. The globulins of man, and in particular the characteristic globulins produced by different patients suffering from multiple myeloma, are likewise recognizably different, inter se, in amino acid composition (21). |
A2. The cell making a given antibody has a correspondingly unique sequence of nucleotides in a segment of its chromosomal DNA: its gene for globulin synthesis This postulate follows plausibly from proposition Al, and would trace antibody-forming specificity to the same source as is imputed to other specific proteins. As the most deterministic of genetic hypotheses, it should be the most vulnerable to experimental test. For example, a single diploid cell should be capable of two potentialities for antibody formation, one for each chromosome. In tests of single antibody-forming cells from rats simultaneously immunized against two Salmonella serotypes, Nossal and I (22) could find only monospecific cells producing one or the other antiflagellin [antibody against the whip-like flagella born by the Salmonella bacterium]. Coons (23) and White (24) have reached a similar conclusion in applications of fluorescent labeling technique. However, Cohn and Lennox (25) have convincing evidence for some bispecific antibody-forming cells in rabbits immunized against two bacteriophages. Experiments pertinent to the possibility of a single cell's carrying more than two antibody-forming specificities remain to be done (26). The chromosomal localization of antibody-forming specificity is uncoupled from its elective origin in proposals (7, 8, 27) that an antigen induces a mutation in a gene for globulin synthesis, though not necessarily involving a new nucleotide sequence. Multiple specificity would stand against a simple chromosomal basis for antibody formation (28), leaving two alternative possibilities: (i) replicate chromosomal genes, or (ii) extrachromosomal particles such as microsomes. These might best be disentangled by some technique of genetic recombination. The differentiation of microsomes must be implicit in any current statement of a theory of antibody formation that recognizes their central role of protein synthesis. The main issue is whether or not their specificity is dependent on that of the chromosomal DNA. Autonomy of microsomes, in contradiction to proposition A2, is implicit in most instructive theories, the microsome carrying either the original, or a copy of, the antigenic message. On the other hand, a powerful elective theory is generated by substituting the term microsomal for the terms chromosomal DNA and gene in the various propositions. Since a single cell may have millions of microsomes, this theory would allow for any imaginable multiplicity of antibody forming information in a single cell. If the potential variety of this information approaches that of the total antibody response, further instructions in an antigenic input would become moot. In addition, the complexities of selection of cellular populations would be compounded by those of microsomal populations within each cell. These degrees of freedom which blur the distinction between microsomal instruction and election favor the utility of the chromosomal hypothesis as a more accessible target for experimental attack. |
Genic Diversity of Precursor Cells
A3. The genic diversity of the precursors of antibody-forming cells arises from a high rate of spontaneous mutation during their lifelong proliferation. Three elements of this statement should be emphasized:
Item (i) and its justification by various experiments have already been discussed as an aspect of proposition A2. Talmage (2) also stresses the specialization of antibody-forming cells by referring to their progressive differentiation. This is entirely consistent with propositions A3 and A4, which then postulate a specific mechanism of cellular differentiation, in this case, gene mutation. If, on Talmage's model, fully differentiated cells are ultimately left with no more than one antibody-forming specificity per chromosome, the general consequences will be the same, whether this final state represents the unique activation of one among innumerable chromosomal loci (see 27), or the evolution of one among innumerable specific alleles at a given locus. Once again, the final resort for decision may have to be a recombinational technique. If the discrepancy between the experiments of Nossal and Lederberg (22) and those of Cohn and Lennox (25), as discussed under proposition A2, is real and depends on the timing of immunization, it may furnish strong support for (ii), the random origin of antibody-forming specificity. If antibody-forming cells can have two (or any small number of) specificities randomly derived, only a negligible proportion will have just the two being tested for. This would correspond to the case of simultaneous immunization with the two test antigens. If, however, a population of cells carrying one specificity is selected for, followed by selection for a second specificity among all available cells, this is the case of serial immunization and is precisely the method one would predict to obtain a clone "heterozygous" for two mutant alleles. Simultaneous versus serial immunization would be analogous to the suppression versus selection of bacterial mutants resistant to two antibiotics (29). Further experiments are needed to exclude more trivial reasons for the scarcity of bispecific antiflagellin-forming cells. Item (iii) diverges from Burnet's proposal that the "randomization" of antibody-forming cells is confined to perinatal life, thereby generating a set of then stable clones corresponding to the antibody-forming potentiality of the animal. These clones would then be irreplaceable if lost either by random drift or as a consequence of premature exposure to the corresponding antigen. The arguments against Burnet's proposal are by no means decisive; however, the correspondence between cells and antibodies is made more difficult by having to maintain each clone at a sufficient population size to compensate for loss by random drift. Further, the recurrence of antibody-forming specificity is supported by experiments showing the decay of immune tolerance in the absence of the corresponding antigen (30; see comment on proposition A6). Since immune reactivity in these experiments may return during adult life, susceptibility to the induction and maintenance of tolerance by the timely introduction of the antigen may have only a coincidental relationship to the immunological incompetence of the new-born animal. |
A4. This hypermutability consists of the random assembly of the DNA of the "globulin gene" during certain stages of cellular proliferation. This ad hoc proposal is doubtless the least defensible of the propositions, and certainly the furthest removed from experimental observation. It is stated to illustrate that accurate replication rather than mutability is the more remarkable phenomenon, whatever the detailed mechanism for the variation. If, as has been suggested, many nucleotide triplets are nonsensical (31), the triplets rather than single nucleotides would have to be posed as the unit of assembly in this case. To carry this speculation one step further, heterochromatin has been proposed to be, on the one hand, a random sequence, and, on the other hand, a dissynchronously assembled segment of the genome (32). If both views are correct, proposition A4 might be restated: "the globulin gene is heterochromatic during certain stages of cellular proliferation" (becoming by implication, euchromatic in the mature stages of propositions A8 and A9). For the theory of microsomal election it might be postulated that globulinogenic microsomes are initially fabricated as faulty replicas of the globulin gene, but are then capable of exact, autonomous replication. Pending more exact knowledge and agreement of opinion on the morphogenetic relationships of antibody-forming cells, the term certain stages cannot be improved upon. On the other hand, as is shown under proposition A8, a model might be constructed even on the basis of a constant but high mutation rate of all antibody-forming cells. Further insight into the mechanism of cellular diversity in antibody fomation may be won by studies on the genetic control of reactivity to various antigens in inbred animals (33); two cautions, however, must be stated: (i) for effects on the transport of particles of different size, and (ii) for effects from cross-reactions with gene-controlled constituents evoking autotolerance. |
Spontaneous Production of Antibody
A5. Each cell, as it begins to mature, spontaneously produces small amounts of the antibody corresponding to its own genotype. Note the implication that antibody is formed prior to the introduction of the antigen into the antibody-forming cell. The function of spontaneous antibody is to mark those cells preadapted to react with a given antigen, either to suppress these cells for the induction of immune tolerance (proposition A6) or to excite them to massive antibody formation (proposition A7). Therefore, the antigen need participate in no type of specific reaction with cell constituents other than antibody itself, the one type of reaction available to chemically diverse antigens that requires no further special pleading. There is no agreement whether the reactive globulins found in the serum of untreated animals ["natural antibody"] are produced spontaneously or by casual exposure to cross-reacting antigens (see 2). Accordingly, the spontaneous antibody postulated in proposition A5 may, or may not, be produced in the quantity and form needed for it to be liberated and detected in the serum. The nonspecific fragment of antibody-globulin described by Porter raises the possibility that the same determinant segment may be coupled either to a diffusible or to a cell-bound residue, the latter corresponding to various aspects of cellular immunity, including the suppression or excitation of antibody-forming cells by reactions with the corresponding antigen. |
A6. The immature antibody-forming cell is hypersensitive to an antigen-antibody combination: it will be suppressed if it encounters the homologous antigen at this time. This is the first of four propositions which bear less on the source of antibody-forming specificity than on its subsequent expression in terms of cellular behavior. These propositions are therefore equally applicable to instructive theories. The duality of reactions of antigens with antibody-forming cells is simply a restatement of the experimental observations of tolerance versus immunity (34). It seems plain that every cell of the antibody-forming system must be marked to inhibit its reactivity both to the autologous antigens of the same animal and extraneous antigens introduced and maintained from a suitably early time of development. In the light of current evidence for the persistence of antigenic molecules (5, 6) and for the loss of tolerance when a given antigen has dissipated (30), there are no more plausible candidates for the self-markers then the antigens themselves. The distinction between the function of an antigen as inhibitor (self-marker) or as inducer of antibody formation is then the time when the antigen is introduced into the potential antibody forming cell, We may profitably define maturity in terms of the progression of the cell from sensitivity towards reactivity. The suppression of this process of maturation is a sufficient attribute to account for tolerance, and this need not involve so drastic an event as the destruction of the cell. However, the elective hypothesis proposes that only a limited number of cells will spontaneously react with a given antigen, so that their destruction by premature reaction can safely be invoked as the means of their suppression. It may be hoped that presently documented phenomena of cellular hypersensitivity may furnish a precedent for cellular destruction by such reactions. The cytotoxicity of the antigen to hypersensitive cells is still controversial even in the historical case of tuberculin sensitivity (35). However, the destruction of invading lymphocytes of the host in the course of rejection of a sensitizing homograft (36) supports the speculation of some role of cellular destruction of immature antibody-forming cells in the induction of tolerance. The nature of immaturity remains open to question. It might reflect the morphogenetic status of the antibody-forming cell -- for example, sensitive lymphocyte --> reactive plasma cell (37), some particular composition of immature sensitizing antibody, or merely a very low level of antibody so that complexes are formed in which antigen is in excess. Finally, one additional hint of an implication of hypersensitivity in the early stages of the antibody response: the transient skin sensitivity of delayed type (and transferable by cells) appearing in the course of immunization, as observed by several workers (38). If these skin reactions reflect the destruction of some antibody-forming cells, it would speak for some overlapping or reversibility of the two stages of maturation. The implications of proposition A6 in the elective theory may be summarized as follows: If an antigen is introduced prior to the maturation of any antibody-forming cell, the hypersensitivity of such cells, while still immature, to an antigen-antibody reaction will eliminate specific cell types as they arise by mutation, thereby inducing apparent tolerance to that antigen. After the dissipation of the antigen, reactivity should return as soon as one new mutant cell has arisen and matured. As a further hopeful prediction, it should be possible to induce tolerance in clones of antibody-forming cells from adult animals by exposing a sufficiently small number of initials [?] to a given antigen. |
Excitation of Massive Antibody Formation
A7. The mature antibody-forming cell is reactive to an antigen-antibody combination: it will be stimulated if it first encounters the homologous antigen at this time. The stimulation comprises an acceleration of protein synthesis and the cytological maturation which mark a "plasma cell." These principles of the cellular response to secondary antigenic stimulation are widely accepted and are readily transposed to the primary response on the elective hypothesis whereby some cells have spontaneously initiated antibody formation according to proposition A5. |
A8. Mature cells proliferate extensively under antigenic stimulation but are genetically stable and therefore generate large clones genotypically preadapted to produce the homologous antibody. This proposition takes explicit account of the secondary response, the magnitude of which is a measure of the increase in number of reactive cells (26). However, the antigen need play no direct part in the stabilization of antibody-forming genotype which might accompany the determinate maturation of the cell, whether or not it is stimulated. In fact, it may be possible to dispense with the postulate that mature cells are less mutable by adopting a mutation rate which is an effective compromise: to furnish a variety of genotypes for the primary response while selected genotypes may still expand for the secondary response. For example, by mutation of one daughter chromosome per ten cell divisions, on the average, after ten generations about 600 chromosomes of the same type would have been produced, together with 100 new genotypes distributed among the other 400 or so cells. Selection must then compensate for the mutational drift if a given clone is to be maintained. |
A9. These clones tend to persist after the disappearance of the antigen, retaining their capacity to react promptly to its later reintroduction. This is a restatement of the possibly controversial phenomenon of lifelong immunity to viruses (4, 5). A substantial reservoir of immunological memory should be inherent from one cycle of expansion of a given clone. Its ultimate decay might be mitigated either by continued selection (that is, persistence of the antigen), stabilization of genotypes, or dormancy (to cell division or remutation, or both) on the part of a fraction of the clone. |
Discussion
Each element of the theory just presented has some precedent in biological fact, but this is testimony of plausibility, not reality. As has already been pointed out, the most questionable proposition is A4, and it may be needlessly fanciful to forward a too explicit hypothesis of mutability for antibody formation when so little is known of its material basis anywhere. Theories of antibody formation have, in the past, been deeply influenced by the physiology of inducible enzyme synthesis in bacteria. In particular, instructive theories for the role of the substrate in enzyme induction have encouraged the same speculation about antibody formation. This interpretation of enzyme induction, however, is weakened by the preadaptive occurrence of the enzymes. at a lower level, in uninduced bacteria (39). One of the most attractive features of the elective theory is that it proposes no novel reactions: the only ones invoked here are:
The conceptual picture of enzyme induction would be equally simplified if the enzyme itself were the substrate-receptor. Clearly, susceptibility to enzymic action is not a necessary condition for a compound to be an inducer -- for example, neolactose and thiomethylgalactoside for the beta-D-galactosidase of Escherichia coli (39, 40), but formation of complexes with the enzyme may be. The picture is somewhat complicated by the intervention of specific transport systems for bringing the substrate into the cell (40). Antibody formation is the one form of cellular differentiation which inherently requires the utmost plasticity, a problem for which the hypermutability of a patch of DNA may be a specially evolved solution. Other aspects of differentiation may be more explicitly canalized under genotypic control. Nucleotide substitution might still play a role here by modifying the level of activity rather than the specificity of neighboring loci, and elective recognition of transient states spontaneously derived then remains as a formal, if farfetched, possibility for other morphogenetic inductions. |
References and Notes 1. This definition excludes antibody-like substances such as the hemagglutinins found in normal human sera. These reagents do not, however, pose the problem of the mechanism of specific response which is the burden of this discussion. 2. Talmage, in this issue of Science, discusses various aspects of antibody specificity, including the number of antibodies, which may be exaggerated in current immunological thought. For the present discussion, however, this number is left open for experimental determination, for it would embarrass a theory of cellular selection only if it is large compared with the number of potential antibody-forming cells in the organism. To anticipate proposition A1, as few as five determinant amino acids would allow for 206 = 3,200,000 types of antibody. 3. L. Pauling, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 62, 2640 (1940). 4. F. M. Burnet and F. Fenner, Heredity 2, 289 (1948). 5. F. Haurowitz, Biol. Revs. Cambridge Phil. Soc. 27, 247 (1952). 6. D. H. Campbell, Blood 12, 589 (1957). 7. A. H. Coons, J. Cellular Comp. Physiol. 52, Suppi. 1, 55 (1958). 8. R. S. Schweet and R. D. Owen, ibid. 50, Suppl. 1, 199 (1957). 9. P. Ehrlich, Studies in Immunity (Wiley, New York, 1910). 10. N. K. Jerne, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A 41, 849 (1955). 11. D. W. Talmage, Ann. Rev. Med. 8, 239 (1957). 12. F. M. Burnet, Australian J. Sci. 20, 67 (1957). 13. I am also indebted to the Fulbright Educational Exchange Program for furnishing the opportunity of visiting Burnet's laboratory in Melbourne. 14. F. Karush, in Strategical and Biochemical Comparisons of Proteins, W. H. Caie, Ed. (Rutgers Univ. Press, New Brunswick, N.J., 1958), chapter 3. 15. V. M. Ingram, Scientific American 238, No. 1, 68 (1958). 16. R. R. Porter, Biochem. J. 59, 405 (1957). 17. ----- , ibid. 46, 473 (l950); M. L. McFadden and E. L. Smith, J. Biol. Chem. 214, 185 (1955). 18. E. L. Smith, M. L. McFadden, A. Snockell, V. Buettner-Janusch, J. Biol. Chem. 214, 197 (1955). 19. R. R. Porter, Nature 182, 670 (1958). 20. M. L. McFadden and E. L. Smith J. Biol. Chem. 216, 621 (1955). 21. E. L. Smith, D. M. Brown, M. L. McFadden, V. Buettner-Janusch, B. V. Jager, ibid. 216, 601 (1955); F. W. Putnam, Science 122, 275 (1955). 22. G. J. V. Nossal and J. Lederberg, Nature 181, 1419 (1958); G. J. V. Nossal, Brit. J. Exptl. Pathol. 39, 544 (1958). 23. A. H. Coons, J. Cellular Comp. Physiol. 50, Suppl. 1, 242 (1957). 24. R. G. White, Nature 182, 1383 (1958). 25. M. Cohn and E. S. Lennox, private communication. 26. An indirect measure of polyspecificity would be the total number of antibodies multiplied by the proportion of competent cells initially recruited to yield a particular species. Coons (7) has not attempted to count the antibody-forming cells in the primary response, but his statements are compatible with an incidence of 10-5 to 10-3 of cells forming antialbumin in lymph nodes 4 days after inoculation. Nossal ( Brit. J. Exptl. Pathol., in press) found about 2 percent of yielding cells in a primary response after 7 days. These figures are subject to an unknown correction for the extent of proliferation in the interval after innoculation. They perhaps also raise the question whether all the yielding cells are indigenous to the lymph node, or whether circulating cells of appropriate type can be filtered by a node in which locally administered antigen has accumulated. 27. J. Schultz, Science 129, 937 (1959). Schultz makes an analogy between antibody formation and serotype determination in Paramecium, stressing the role of cytoplasmic feedback mechanisms in the maintenance of specificity. 28. A diploid cell should be heterozygous for at most two alleles at one locus, but strictly speaking, this is a restriction of genotype, not phenotype. A cell whose proximate ancestors had mutated through a series of different states might carry a phenotypic residue of information no longer represented in its chromosomes [see linear inheritance in transduction clones: B. A. D. Stocker, J. Gen. Microbiol. 15, 375 (1956); J. Lederberg, Genetics 41, 845 (1956)]. Pending tests on clones from single cells, bi- or polyspecificity of antibody-forming phenotype remains subject to this qualification. 29. V. Bryson and M. Demerec, Am J. Med. 18, 723 (1953). 30. C. H. Tempelis, H. R. Wolfe, A. Mueller, Brit. ]. Exptl. Pathol. 39, 323 (1958); R. T. Smith and R. A. Bridges, J. Exptl. Med. 108, 227 (1958); P. B. Medawar and M. F. A. Woodruff, Immunology 1, 27 (1958); G. J. Nossal, Nature 180, 1427 (1957). 31. F. H. C. Crick, J. S. Griffeth, L, E. Orgel, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S. 43, 416 (1957). 32. C. D. Darlington and K. Mather, Nature 149, 66 (1942); J. Schultz, Cold Spring Harbor Symposia. Quant. Biol. 12, 179 (1947); A. Ficq and C. Pavan, Nature 180, 983 (1957). 33. J. H. Sang and W. R. Sobey, J. Immunol. 72, 52 (1954); M. A. Fink and V. A. Quinn, ibid. 70, 61 (1953). 34. M. Cohn, Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 64, 859 (1957). 35. C. B. Favour, Intern. Arch. Allergy 10, 193 (1957); B. H. Waksman and M. Matoltsy, J. Immunol. 81, 220 (1958). 36. J. M. Weaver, G. H. Algire, R. T. Prehn, J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 15, 1737 (1955). 37. J. W. Rebuck, R. W. Monto, E. A. Monaghan, J. M. Riddle, Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 73, 8 (1958). 38. L. Dienes and T. B. Mallory, Am. J. Pathol. 8, 689 (1932); M. Tremaine, J. Immunol. 79, 467 (1957); J. W. Uhr, S. B. Salvin, A. M. Pappenheimer, Jr., J. Exptl. Med. 105,11 (1957); S. Raffel and J. M. Newel, ibid. 108, 823 (1958). 39. J. Lederberg, in Enzymes: Units of Biological Structure and Function, , O. H. Gaebler, Ed. (Academic Press, New York, 1956), p. 161. A feeble attempt in this paper to homologize antibody formation with elective enryme induction was hindered by an uncritical rejection of proposition Al and by the want of a tangible cellular model such as Burnet and Talmage have since furnished. 40. J. Monod, ibid., p. 7. |
Two contrasting responses to antigen are immunity and tolerance. The cellular basis for this, deriving from the clonal selection theory in the late 1950s, was considered to be that immunologically competent cells responded differentially to antigen depending on their developmental stage. While not excluding the latter, in the mid 1960s it was considered that a cell might also respond differentially to different antigen concentrations. At low antigen concentrations a cell might be stimulated (i.e. immunity), and at high antigen concentrations a cell might be inhibited (i.e. tolerance; Forsdyke, 1966; 1967; 1968; 1969; Doherty & Robertson 2004). This "two signal" hypothesis led to the view that the education of immunologically competent cells (ICC; later known as B and T cells) would involve, not only negative selection (tolerance) as had been suggested by Burnet, but also positive selection. Negative selection meant that the ICC reacting with "self" would be eliminated, leaving holes in the ICC repertoire. The remaining ICC would have to cope with a large, and apparently unpredictable, spectrum of antigens associated with "non-self" foreign agents. Could the specificities of these remaining ICC be broad enough to cope with all invaders? Would the specificities arise randomly? Alternatively, could there be some sort of forearming? For example, foreign agents that could, step-by-step, mutate to appear more like the "self" of their host organism, would have an edge over those that could not. They would then be able to exploit the holes in the ICC repertoire. Could the host, in some way, bias its ICC repertoire to counteract this? This idea was developed in the early 1970s (see below), while the "two signal hypothesis" was ingeniously explored by Cohn and his colleagues (Bretscher & Cohn, 1968,1970; Cohn 1989,1994; Langman & Cohn 1996). However, Cohn postulated inhibition at low antigen concentrations, and stimulation at high antigen concentrations. While not excluding multiple zones of sensitivity to different concentrations (and modes of presentation) of antigenic determinants, most studies now tend to favour inhibition by high antigen concentrations (e. g. Alexander-Miller et al., 1996; Gaudin et al. 2004), as argued in the following paper. There is also more evidence that, as suggested by Azar and coworkers (1968, 1971), some forms of tolerance may require complement (e.g. Prodeus, A. P. et al. 1998; Manderson et al. 2004; Ferry et al. 2007), and that natural autoantibodies are secreted by positively selected B cells (Gaudin et al. 2004), and can exert a "buffering" function (Coutinho & Avrameas 1992). |
The Lancet (1968) 1, 281-283 (10th February)
With copyright permission from The Lancet Ltd.
The Liquid Scintillation Counter as an Analogy for the Distinction between "Self" and "Not-self" in Immunological Systems
By D. R. FORSDYKE
Summary
Introduction
Liquid Scintillation Counting
Two Antibody Sites Buffered By Natural Antibody
Elimination Of Self-Reacting Cells
Discussion
End Note
Summary. The natural selection theory of immunity of Jerne, with its emphasis on natural antibody, is combined with the clonal selection theory of Burnet, with its emphasis on cells, to produce a simple "two site" hypothesis of the mechanism of immune self-recognition in vivo. An analogy is made with a similar process occurring in liquid scintillation counters containing two photocells and a coincidence circuit. |
I explore here the extent to which the principles of
a known process in a non-biological system can be applied to the biological problem of
immune self-recognition in vivo. The result is a scheme of interrelationships between
various cellular and humoral factors which, although it rests on tenuous experimental
evidence, seems to be not too inconsistent with the currently accepted facts of
immunology.
A number of more detailed, and hence more controversial, postulates will be made here. These are that:
A possible mechanism by which self-recognition could occur in vivo will be derived from a consideration of an analogous process occurring in modern liquid scintillation counters. Insofar as activation is closely linked with the postulated recognition process it will also be discussed. Neither the mechanism of randomisation nor amplification, will be considered here. Radioactivity in a scintillation solution emits pulses of light energy which may be detected by a photocell (11) which converts light energy into electrical energy. In theory, simply connecting the photocell to a counting meter should provide a record of the disintegrations occurring in the solution, and thus of the amount of radioactivity present. In practice, however, the background "noise" within the photocell seriously reduces the sensitivity of the method. The counting meter needs to distinguish between pulses of energy originating within the scintillation solution ("not-self "), and those originating within the photocell ("self"). The difficulty is overcome by using a coincidence circuit in which the scintillation solution is looked at, not by one, but by two photocells. Spontaneous discharge in each photocell individually is virtually eliminated by permitting only electrical pulses arriving simultaneously from both photocells to activate the counting meter (12; Fig. 1). |
Fig. 1 - Mechanism of self-recognition in a liquid scintillation counter. The radioactivity to be measured is mixed with a scintillation solution in a glass bottle and placed between two photocells. These convert light energy into electrical energy. The system is in complete darkness.
|
TWO ANTIBODY SITES BUFFERED BY NATURAL ANTIBODY
A postulate of most clonal theories of immunity is
that somewhere in or on a cell is a site capable of reacting with an antigenic determinant
against which the cell is uniquely able to respond immunologically. A cell is considered
to bear an antibody site which it has itself synthesized in accordance with the unique
information coded in its nucleic acid. A coincidence circuit model would require at least
two such "cell-borne" sites. Activation of one site
might mean "self" and activation
of both sites simultaneously might mean "not-self"
(or vice versa). The natural antibody molecules would "buffer" the cell against changes in antigenic determinant concentration; the threshold for reaction with a cell would be raised, and the range of discrimination would be increased. The critical factor governing combination of a determinant with a cell would be, not the determinant/cell concentration ratio, but the determinant/natural-antibody concentration ratio. (Factors such as the number and distribution of the cells of a particular clone, antigen diffusion gradients, and dissociation constants will not be considered here.) ELIMINATION OF SELF-REACTING CELLS
In what ways do self determinants differ from
foreign determinants? Self determinants can vary over a wide range of concentrations
(compare, for example, serum-albumin with the serum levels of some protein hormones;
13).
In theory, foreign determinants can also vary over an equally wide range of
concentrations. The only definitive statement which can be made about foreign determinants
is that they are unlikely to be constantly present; for much of the time their
concentration is likely to be zero. Self-determinants are likely to be constantly present
at some concentration higher than zero. |
Fig. 2 - Hypothetical mechanism by which immunologically competent cells capable of reacting with "self" are eliminated in vivo. Following a "randomisation" process, lymphocytes are released from the thymus each bearing two antibody sites of identical specificity in close proximity at its surface. "Self " antigenic determinants, present at the unique moment of release, destroy self-reacting cells by combining with both cell-borne antibody sites, and fixing complement. Surviving non-self-reacting cells then initiate the secretion of natural antibody. Free natural antibody molecules buffer cells against changes in antigenic determinant concentration so that generally only one of the cell-borne sites reacts with determinant, and an immune response is initiated. |
That immune responses in vivo can be critically dependent on antigen concentration is well documented (14,15). There are a number of in-vitro studies which may be interpreted as showing that lymphoid cells respond to low concentrations of antigen and are inhibited at higher concentrations:
Although a case can be made out for the existence of natural antibody (27, 28), there is no evidence that it buffers cells. However, an interesting analogy with the postulated cell buffering has arisen from studies of the in-vitro activation of lymphocytes by phytohaemagglutinin. The transforming activity of solutions of phytohaemagglutinin could be adsorbed out with leucocytes (29, 30); this indicated that the activating principle might produce its effect by reacting with cells directly. However, the actual quantity of phytohaemagglutinin required to produce a given activation response of cells was not proportional to the cell concentration, but to the concentration of serum in the culture medium. The response was proportional to the phytohaemagglutinin/serum concentration ratio (31-33).
The requirement of the combination of two antigenic determinants with
two cell-borne antibody sites for cell destruction, is compatible with current knowledge
of the action of complement on cells. It is likely that not one, but two, separate
reactions in close proximity of antigenic determinants with antibody sites must occur for
complement to be fixed and destroy a cell (34,
35). In the presence of
complement, anti-lymphocyte antibody stimulates lymphocytes to transform in vitro;
however, at high antibody concentrations cells are destroyed (36-38).
Anti-immunoglobulin antibody also activates lymphocytes to transform in vitro, and
evidence has been obtained suggesting a reaction of the anti-immunoglobulin antibody with
a cell-borne immunoglobulin (39). References 1. Jerne, N. K. Proc. natn. Acad. Sci., Wash. 1955, 41,
849. |
END NOTE Commentary on the above paper may be found in: Cohn, M. (1989) History of Associative Recognition Theory. In Foreword to The Immune System, Academic Press, San Diego. Cohn. M. (1994) The Wisdom of Hindsight. Annu. Rev. Immunol. 12, 1-62. Doherty, M. & Robertson, M. J. (2004) Some early Trends in Immunology. Trends Immunol. 25, 623-631. Langman, R. E. & Cohn, M. (1996) A short history of time and space in immune discrimination. Scand. J. Immunol. 44, 544-548. Podolsky, S. H. & Tauber, A. (1997) The Generation of Diversity: Clonal Selection Theory and the Rise of Molecular Immunology. pp. 151-152. Further References Alexander-Miller, M. A., Leggatt, G. R., Sarin, A. & Berzofsky, J. A. (1996) J. Exp. Med. 184, 485-492. Role of antigen, CD8, and cytotoxic T lymphocyte (CTL) avidity in high dose antigen induction of apoptosis of effector CTL. Bretcher, P. & Cohn, M. (1968) Nature 220, 444-448. Minimal model for the mechanism of antibody induction and paralysis by antigen. Bretcher, M. A. & Cohn, M. (1970) Science 169, 1042-1049. A theory of self-nonself discrimination. Coutinho, A. & Avrameas, S. (1992) Speculations on immunosomatics: potential diagnostic and therapeutic value of immune homeostasis concepts. Scand. J. Immun. 36, 527-532. Ferry H. et al. (2007) Increased positive selection of B1 cells and reduced B cell tolerance to intracellular antigens in C1q-deficient mice. J. Immunol. 178, 2916-2922. Forsdyke, D. R. (1969) J. Theor. Biol. 25, 173-185. A theory of immunity. Gaudin E. et al. (2004) J. Exp. Med. 199, 843-853. Positive selection of B cells expressing low densities of self-reactive BCRs. Kappler, J. W., Skidmore, B., White, J. & Marrack, P. (1981) Antigen-inducible, H2-restricted, interleukin-2-producing T cell hybridomas. Lack of independent antigen and H-2 recognition. J. Exp. Med 153, 1198-1213. Manderson, A. P. et al. (2004) Annu. Rev. Immunol. 22, 431-456. The role of complement in the development of systemic lupus erythematosus. Prodeus, A. P., et al. (1998) Immunity 9, 721-731. A critical role for complement in the maintenance of self tolerance. END NOTE 2018 This paper was published in 1968 prior to a full appreciation of the distinction between B and T cells, so they were generically referred to as lymphocytes with an antibody-like surface receptor for antigenic determinants that were part of an antigen. Subsequently in the 1980s it was recognized that the T-cell receptor, although basically antibody-like, had evolved to recognize MHC-peptide (pMHC) complexes at the surface of presenting cells. However, looking at Figure 2 it is easy to imagine the receptor as a T-cell receptor that would recognize cell-bound pMHC complexes. If there were buffering, there should be release in soluble form, either of T cell receptors as in the figure, or of whole or partial pMHC complexes that were released in soluble form from presenting cells. There is now substantial evidence for the existence in body fluids (plasma) of soluble pMHC complexes ("sMHC"; Bakela & Athanassakis 2018). These could be released from presenting cells and, in their buffering role, divert T cells away from their cell-bound targets. A desirable outcome? The authors state: "Therefore sMHC molecules can bind to their natural receptors and suppress T-cells through apoptosis or receptor blockage." Bakela K, Athanassakis I (2018) Soluble major histocompatibility complex molecules in immune regulation: highlighting class II antigens. Immunology 153:315-324. |
Further Implications of a Theory of Immunity (1975)
End Note on the Differential Avidity/Affinity Model
It followed from the two signal hypothesis that a concentration of antigen which could inactivate a cell with high specificity receptors might, at the same time, activate a cell with low specificity receptors. This is illustrated in the following "Figure 6" from Immunology (1973b) 25, 597-612, which deals with the incorporation of tritium-labeled thymidine by cultures of lymph-node cells in the absence or presence of added antigen. |
Figure 6.
Legend to Figure 6. Theoretical antigen dose-response curves for three subpopulations (clones) of cells (A, B, C) of decreasing specificity for the antigen, in the presence (curve 1) or absence (curve 2) of a complement inhibitor [held to prevent high-dose inhibition]. At low antigen concentrations clone A is stimulated. As the concentration of antigen increases clone A begins to be inhibited, but clone B begins to be stimulated. At still higher concentrations, clone B begins to be inhibited, but clone C begins to be stimulated. The shape of the resultant curve depends on the size of each population. At early stages of the immune response there would be more low specificity cells (C) than high specificity cells (A; Forsdyke, 1969), and a curve similar to curve 2 would be obtained. If the inhibitory component of these curves could be eliminated with a complement inhibitor, then curve 1 would be obtained. |
This led to the view that the education of immunologically competent cells (B and T cells) would involve not only negative selection, but also positive selection. Jerne (1971) made the interesting suggestion that some germ-line genes for immunoglobulins had been selected over evolutionary time for reactivity with self MHC. The following letter shows that he did not think positive selection would result. |
Jerne and Positive Selection LETTER
By D. R. FORSDYKE
Immunology Today (1995) 16,
105.
(With copyright permission from Elsevier Publications.)
In a delightful review (1) entitled "Why Positive Selection?" Polly Matzinger adopts a position of "unabashed advocacy" and declares that Niels Jerne "invented positive selection", citing his paper published in 1971 (2). This puts those of us who have not been citing Jerne in this respect (3) in rather an embarrassing position. Have we been unfair to Jerne? I believe that Matzinger may, from a modern perspective, have read more into Jerne’s paper than he originally intended. In 1971, immunologists were particularly concerned with explanations for high rates of cell proliferation and death in the thymus and the relatively high proportion of lymphocytes involved in allorecognition phenomena. Jerne made the novel postulate that an organism’s germline "V-region genes" encode the combining sites of antibodies directed against the histocompatibility antigens of its own species. He distinguished two lymphocyte subsets:
Cells of the former subset:
Jerne stated that a cell of subset S:
He then comes very near to the idea of positive selection by adding that:
However, he went on to say that:
Only cells that can mutate survive, so that:
Thus, there is ongoing proliferation in the thymus and it is the absence of negative selection, not positive selection, that in Jerne’s view allows mutant cells to survive. The role of intrathymic self-histocompatibility antigens in driving the proliferation of the S subset was added as an afterthought with no implication of a positive selection for the ability to react with histocompatibility antigens (the role of the A subset). Indeed, Jerne concluded (2) that:
|
Another unabashed advocist of Jerne's ideas was Philippa Marrack who, from the Presidential podium of the American Association of Immunologists was, as late as 2001, describing Jerne's 1971 paper as "visionary" (J. Immunology 167, 617-621) in proposing that "lymphocyte receptors were selected evolutionarily to react with MHC proteins." However, she noted that while "immunologists [have] clung to the idea," from structural evidence they "have had to reluctantly conclude that TCR and MHC may not have some conserved fit for each other." Thus, "the germline repertoire of ... TCRs [T cell receptors] may actually be completely random and the high frequency with which TCRs react with MHC may ... simply be because of positive selection in the thymus for low reaction with self-MHC (plus peptide) and heteroclitic cross reaction between self and foreign MHC." It should be noted that, although the idea was in circulation, 1971 was prior to Tonegawa's demonstration of multiple V regions which translocate to a limited number of constant (C) regions, from which free (secreted) and cell-bound immunoglobulins (receptors) would be derived. In 1971 the problem of how antibody variability was generated was a black box, and "mutation" was as good a way to allude to what might be going on in that box as any other. However, as for "visionary," perhaps we should pause. Visions can be either correct or incorrect. Jerne's work was presented in September 1969 at a WHO meeting, and again at a Brook Lodge conference on Immunological Surveillance in 1970. Copies were widely circulated, and I received a copy second hand. Jerne's 1971 paper carried ad hoc assumptions such as: "I assume that antibodies directed against self-components on cell surfaces have some important function in ontology." He should have known that mules are sterile because gametogenesis is impaired, so that there are no offspring. Yet he wrote: "Mules may be viable because their cells contain complete haploid sets of v-genes for the relevant histocompatibility antigens of both parents, but the cells of their offspring would most often be deficient in this respect." The high point of Jerne's paper came early with the statement, of which the Brook Lodge version (1970; full reference below) is clearer:
This might well be the introduction to a paper on positive selection. However, Jerne's is not that paper. In 2004 Marrack and her colleagues seemed to agree, noting that, at that time, Jerne "could not have predicted the idea of positive selection". They also stated that "the notion of death-by-neglect had certainly not come up" (Huseby et al. 2004. Eur. J. Immun. 34, 1243-50). In 1998 Thomas Soderqvist's biography of Jerne was published in Danish, and in 2003 an English translation by David Paul became available. However, I did not get round to reading it until September 2010. Several issues were clarified, as is indicated elsewhere in these pages where I press for reform of the peer-review system using, as example, the "ultimate" test of that system, the awarding of a Nobel prize in the context of the clonal selection theory (Click Here). In 1984 Jerne shared the prize with Kohler and Milstein who had discovered how to make large quantities of monoclonal antibodies - a finding of much clinical value. Sodersvist's book went some way in examining the rationale for Jerne's Nobel prize. First we should note that, despite numerous prior nominations, it was not until 1922 that Albert Einstein received the Nobel prize. It was for his discovery of the photoelectric effect, and did not take "into account the value which will be accorded your relativity and gravitational theories after these are confirmed in the future." Formally, Jerne's Nobel award was "for theories concerning the specificity in development and control of the immune system." But these, in themselves, had little to do with the Kohler-Milstein work, and have not yet been "confirmed in the future." Jerne's natural selection theory (1955), hinted at the truth in very important ways, but was mechanistically wrong. Since he was aware of Paul Ehrlich's work, many were surprised that he did not take the clonal step. And, as mentioned above, his ideas on the selection of the immunological repertoire (1971), while again hinting at the truth, are wrong. Jerne's 1974 network theory (an elaboration of Ehrlich's idea that an antigen-binding site on an antibody molecule can itself be antigenic) has to date gained little support. A historian (A. I. Tauber) recently commented (Isis, 2010) on the account of Jerne's network theory in the second edition (2009) of Arthur Silverstein's monumental A History of Immunology:
Soderqvist notes that a professor of immunology at the Karolinska Institute publicly "explained that Jerne received the prize for his 'visionary theories' that had enabled modern immunology to make major leaps in progress, and in a private letter to Jerne pointed out that "it was good that we are also able to reward theories; actually, this is the first time [in medicine], as far as I know."' Soderqvist points out that formally the Nobel Foundation is required to give prizes to those that have made "the most important discoveries within the domain of" the subject (in this case physiology or medicine). Thus the scope of the word "discovery" had been extended beyond facts to theories. One can "discover" a theory. Further information on the matter will not be available until 2034 when the Nobel Foundation opens its 1984 files.
End
Note (Oct 2012) The Jerne
(1971) hypothesis of germ-line bias for MHC reactivity was further
thrown into doubt by Holland et al. (2012), which reviewed evidence
from the Singer lab. (2007, 2012).
Holland SJ et al. (2012)
The T-cell receptor is not hardwired to engage
MHC ligands. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences, USA
doi/10.1073/pnas.1210882109.
(See also Forsdyke 2012; Click Here) |
Some early quotations on Positive Selection
On incorporation of [3 H] thymidine by control cultures of lymph-node cells with no added antigen. [Forsdyke, D. R. Immunology (1973a) 25, 583-595. Serum factors affecting the incorporation of [3 H]thymidine by lymphocytes stimulated by antigen. I. Serum concentration.] |
"..Labelling in control cultures might
represent a response to endogenous antigens; these might be bound to, or released from,
phagocytic cells present in culture (Garvey and Cambell,
1966). Such antigens would
include
|
On incorporation of [3 H]thymidine by cultures of lymph-node cells stimulated by antigen. [Forsdyke, D. R. Immunology (1973b) 25, 597-612. Serum factors affecting the incorporation of [3 H]thymidine by lymphocytes stimulated by antigen. II. Evidence for a role of complement from studies with heated serum. (See Fig. 6 above).] |
"The results are discussed in relationship to
models which require that the size of a specific lymphocyte clone be positively or negatively regulated by the
concentration of antigen specific for that clone." "..relationship to models in which the size of a specific lymphocyte population (clone) may be regulated by positive or negative signals dependent on the concentration of antigenic determinants with specificity for receptor sites borne by cells of the clone (e.g. Forsdyke, 1966, 1968, 1969)." |
For more on antigen-dose response curves see Forsdyke (1977; Click Here) |
Further Implications of a Theory of Immunity By D. R. FORSDYKE J. Theoretical Biology (1975) 52, 187-198 (Received 28th May 1974) (With copyright permission from Academic Press) Restatement of Main Features of the Theory
End Note on the Differential Avidity/Affinity Model
5. An Overview
|
End Note on the Differential Avidity/Affinity Model The above paper treated lymphoid cells generically without a distinction between B and T lymphocytes, or a consideration of the role of the macrophage (which was poorly understood at that time). The model has come to be known as the differential affinity/avidity model of the development of the immunological repertoire, and applies to both B and T lymphocytes, which may be located either "centrally" (in a mutant-breeding and educating organ), or peripherally. Cell surface antigens were also treated generically, although MHC involvement was suggested ("particularly if the surface components show a high degree of polymorphism (Bodmer, 1972)". -- "Thus immune response loci would be associated with loci for cell surface determinants (Benecerraf & McDevitt, 1972)". Association of antigen with MHC was invoked in the discussion (p. 195), but not in a way that can now be viewed as prescient. In December 1973 Zinkernagel & Doherty submitted a paper to Nature which, from a quite different perspective, reached some similar conclusions. Instead of the term "near self", which emphasized how close an antigen might be to self, the authors used the term "altered self", which emphasized the fact of a difference from self. Extending earlier work on MHC-restriction of B and T cell cooperation, they showed that T cell-mediated cytotoxicity was also MHC-restricted (Zinkernagel & Doherty 1974, 1997). Under my model (derived from the first principles set out in the above Lancet paper) MHC-restriction would be an automatic consequence of the selection of anti-near-self cells during their initial maturation (education). Thus, the ideas of positive selection and of its mechanism came as one conceptual package. The need to take into account total population-size homeostasis was emphasized, so that the increase in a population of one affinity would require proportionate decreases in some other populations. Although my 1975 paper invoked much circumstantial evidence, the first definitive experimental evidence generally acknowledged as supporting positive selection came in 1977 (see Jameson et al. 1995).The differential affinity/avidity model was independently suggested by Sprent & Webb (1987), and although for some time opposed by the "peptide" model (Marrack & Kappler, 1987), it eventually became widely accepted as applying generically to both T and B lymphocytes (Von Boehmer, 1994; Hayajawa et al. 1999; Detours & Perelson 1999; Gaudin et al. 2004; Cancro & Kearney, 2004). Janeway (2001) concluded:
My 1975 paper also defined what later unfortunately became known as "death-by-neglect". The paper invoked homeostatic mechanisms operating randomly on the whole lymphocyte population that would tend to keep the total population size constant. Hence, when low specificity cells increased in number, the number of cells of higher and lower specificities would decrease. Since the majority of cells in the total population were of zero and very low specificities, the absolute decrease mainly affected these cell species. Thus death-by-neglect (implying passivity) was not a good description since, although poorly defined, active homeostatic processes were involved. The principle of cell population homeostasis was further invoked in 1991 (Forsdyke, 1991; Click Here).
Later work recognized that, in addition to the latter growth factors, self antigens have a role "not only to select a receptor repertoire in the thymus, but also to keep naive T cells alive and 'ready for action' in the periphery" (Goldrath & Bevan 1999; Ernst et al. 1999). However, employment of the term "naive" for cells which have been well educated in the mutant-breeding and educating organ (thymus in the case of T cells and some B cells; Akashi et al. 2000), is unfortunate. The need to know "the underlying biological rationale" of lymphocyte positive selection was stressed by Cancro & Kierney (2004), whose ideas seemed to favour the model advanced in my 1975 paper that anti-'near-self' cells "Provide a barrier opposing the progressive evolution of the surface determinants of a pathogen into forms identical with the surface determinants of its host." For more on the relative merits of the terms "alternative self" and "near-self" see Forsdyke (2005) (Click Here). Many immunologists in the 1970s (e.g. in Melbourne, Basel, Denver) approached the idea of positive selection solely from the perspective of T-lymphocytes, rather than generically (B and T lymphocytes) as here. Consequently, a somewhat different history of the discovery of positive selection is usually given (see refs. below). However, there remains general agreement (Bevan et al. 1994) that:
For more see Lewin's "Great Experiments in Biology" where Harald von Boehmer gives his account. Donald Forsdyke REFERENCES Akashi, K., Richie, L. I., Miyamoto, T., Carr, W. H. & Weissman, I. L. (2000) B lymphopoiesis in the thymus. J. Immun. 164, 5221-26. Benecerraf, B. & McDevitt, H. 0. (1972) Histocompatibility-linked immune response genes Science 175, 273-279. Bevan, M. J., Hogquist, K. A. & Jameson, S. C. (1994) Selecting the T cell receptor repertoire. Science 264, 796-797. Bodmer, W. F. (1972) Nature 237, 139-145. Evolutionary significance of the HLA system. Cancro, M. P. & Kearney, J. F. (2004) J. Immunol.173, 15-19. B cell positive selection: road map to the primary repertoire? Detours, V. & Perelson, A. S. (1999) Explaining alloreactivity as a quantitative consequence of affinity-driven thymocyte selection. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96, 5153-5158. Ernst, B., Lee, D-S., Chang, J. M., Sprent, J. & Surh, C. D. (1999) The peptide ligands mediating positive selection in the thymus control T cell survival and homeostatic proliferation in the periphery. Immunity 11, 173-181. Goldrath, A. W. & Bevan, M. J. (1999) Selecting and maintaining a diverse T-cell repertoire. Nature 402, 255-262. Low-affinity ligands for the TCR drive proliferation of mature CD8+ cells in lymphopenic hosts. Immunity 11, 183-190. Gaudin, E., Hao, Y., Rosado, M. M., Chaby, R., Girard, R. & Freitas, A. A. (2004) Positive selection of B cells expressing low densities of self-reactive BCRs. J. Exp. Med. 199, 843-853. Hayakawa, K., Asano, M., Shinton, S. A., Gui, M., Allman, D., Stewart, C. L., Silver, J. & Hardy, R. R. (1999) Positive selection of natural autoreactive B cells. Science 285, 113-116. Huseby, E., Kappler, J. & Marrack, P. (2004) TCR-MHC/peptide interactions: kissing cousins or a shotgun wedding? Eur. J. Immunol. 34, 1243-50. Jameson, S. C., Hogquist, K. A. & Bevan, M. J. (1995) Annu. Rev. Immunol. 13, 93-126. Janeway, C. A. (2001) How the immune system works to protect the host from infection: a personal view. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98, 7461-7468. Jerne, N. K. (1970) Generation of antibody diversity and self tolerance - a new theory. Immune Surveillance. Proceedings of a International Conference Held at Brook Lodge, Augusta, Michigan. Edited by R. T. Smith & M. Landy. Academic Press, New York. pp. 343-363. Marrack, P. & Kappler, J. (1987) Science 238, 1073-1079. The T cell receptor. Sprent, J. & Webb, S. R. (1987) Adv. Immunol. 41, 39-133. Function and specificity of T cell subsets in the mouse. Von Boehmer, H. (1994) Cell 76, 219-228. Positive selection of lymphocytes. Zinkernagel, R. M. & Doherty (1974) Nature 248, 701-702. Restriction of in vitro T cell-mediated cytotoxicity in lymphocytic choriomeningitis with a syngeneic or semiallogeneic system. Zinkernagel, R. M. & Doherty (1997) Immun. Today 18, 14-17. The discovery of MHC restriction. |
Next for: Intracellular Self/Not-self Discrimination (Click Here)
Go to: "Alternative Self" or "Near Self" (Click Here)
Go to: Historical Overview 2012 (Click Here)
Return to: Theoretical Immunology index (Click Here)
Return to: Home-Page (Click Here)
This page was established circa 1999, and last edited on 05 February 2018, by Donald Forsdyke. For previous versions of this page see http://www.archive.org