Other views - other concepts
- A good point to start looking at other ideas is in an article by Zlatko Dembic in The Immunologist. This article starts with an exposition of Zlatko's "Integrity" theory and goes on to explore other, significant, extant perceptions about the function of the immune system. (Nb, this journal has gone "extinct" – follow the Zlatko link to find out more about this article.
- Other points to look for "concept" material is in the following two journal editions:
- Seminars in Immunology –June 2000 issue
- Immunological Reviews – Volume 159 – On the mystique of the immunological self.
- The "Sense of self" web debate at HMS Beagle (no longer archived there but visible here)
- Particular authors or groups of authors with an interest in models of immune function.
- The Cohn/Langman view (see the PubMed search for Melvin Cohn's papers.)
- Coutinho – see Seminars in Immunology June 2000 issue as above.
- Polly Matzinger and the "danger" hypothesis (PubMed list). Note that the "danger" theory has, as one if its main posits, the suggestion that the immune system does not discriminate self from non–self. Now, if this concept means to restrict this statement to just the adaptive immune system, I more or less agree with that (although self/non-self still has an influence upon it, it is not a primary "purpose"). If it means that there is no form of self non–self discrimination, then I think that this conclusion is wrong. The problem is that the self/non–self theories grew up around a "lymphocentric" view of the immune system and the idea that every encountered epitope (antigen) is categorised into self or non-self. The roles of general cell–to–cell interactions, innate immune cell activity, apoptosis and autophagy were not regarded as integral components of the immune system during the inception stages of the self/non–self theory. I contend that healthy–self–(whole)–cells are discriminated from other–than–healthy–self–(whole)–cells. The latter includes ruptured self (and other) cells and their debris. I further contend that aggressive adaptive immune responses are mounted dominantly, if not exclusively, against epitopes that are encountered in association with damage; and this is more or less in keeping with "danger" when this is interpreted in its "damage–association" perspective (which has now become commonplace).
- Charles Janeway and the "stranger/pattern recognition receptor" hypothesis.
- Theoretical immunology sites (note that many tend to concentrate on mathematical modelling rather than on teleological models – models that attribute a purpose to the system, eg, self/non–self discrimination, "danger" stimulation, "stranger" stimulation). Donald Forsdyke keeps a list of many of these (end of file) together with his own work in this area.
- Arlette Mercae, in her thesis, provides a detailed (and, to my mind, insightful) appraisal of the turbulence that has characterised immune system theories over the last ten to fifteen years
- Fascinatingly, back in 1960 Frank Burnet wrote, "There is an insistent suggestion that immunological self–recognition is derived from the processes by which morphological and functional integrity is maintained in large and long–lived multicellular organisms." Burnet FM, "Immunological recognition of self" Nobel Lecture, December 12, 1960 (found in the conclusion).
- The Scandinavian J Immunology is running a series of (usually free access) discussion papers on models in immunology. Colin Anderson wrote on contextual models of immune stimulation and this appeared in the April 2006 edition of this journal. Matzinger, Cohn, Langman, Zinkernagel and Hengartner made earlier contributions (many cited in Colin Anderson's article).
- Walter Gottlieb Land has also developed a damage model of adaptive immune stimulation. He published his first article, including this concept, in 1994 (cited in this current paper). Arguably, he shares equal publication precedence with Polly Matzinger. He recently (2015) wrote an article entitled "How evolution tells us to induce allotolerance." The reference link is in this article.
Who is citing me?
Remarkably few people. I got a transitory mention (but no source reference) in the "Sense of self" debate. Otherwise this file lists the sum total of those who have cited my papers.
Note that both Rod Langman (2002) and Charlie Janeway (2003) both died soon after the turn into this century