FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2020071640> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2020071640 endingPage "694" @default.
• W2020071640 startingPage "694" @default.
• W2020071640 abstract "The field of immunology has become large and complex so that no one person can hope to master every aspect fully, and it is often necessary to focus on one small area in extreme detail. But the risk of such narrow specialization is that wider observations may be missed, so it may be fruitful occasionally to “step back” and view the overall picture. This may be relevant to the recent use of gene knockout mice to investigate the immune response. This technological advance has brought much new information, and, without a doubt, has greatly enhanced our understanding of the immune system. Yet some aspects of those knockouts, which have targeted crucial molecules within the immune system, seem particularly perplexing. The most remarkable example is the investigation of the role of cytokines and costimulatory molecules in graft rejection. In vitro studies have established the importance of these molecules in the T-cell-mediated immune response, and they form the mechanism for our understanding of the currently favored “Danger” paradigm, as proposed by Polly Matzinger. However, the pace and severity of the graft rejection response in vivo is little changed by most knockouts of cytokine or costimulatory molecules in the recipient, which is in strong contrast to the effect of monoclonal antibody therapy targeted on the same molecule (which hereafter will be termed the “specific blocking approach”) (Table 1) {tabft}Abbreviations: “−”, minor or nil effect; “+”, weak effect; “++”, moderate effect; “+++”, strong effect. 1). This striking finding has not gone unnoticed and the concept of “redundancy” within the immune system has been put forward to explain the results (1).Table 1: Comparison of the effect on rejection of costimulatory molecule gene knockout in the recipient versus antibody blockadeIt is certainly true that multiple costimulatory molecules and cytokines with similar actions have been described, so the argument is feasible, but how does it actually work? The obvious answer would be that there are parallel pathways and molecules that can take over the function of a pathway that is blocked. But if there is such easy redundancy, why is it inoperative when monoclonal antibodies are used to specifically inactivate just one cytokine or accessory molecule? An obvious explanation would be that monoclonal antibodies are more efficient than knockout techniques at actually reducing the effective concentration of the target molecule. There certainly are some knockout models that are “leaky,” for example β2-microglobulin knockout for MHC Class 1. However, the knockouts of costimulatory molecules and cytokines generally have not been “leaky,” according to published analysis of specific expressed RNA or protein. A second possibility is that monoclonal antibodies somehow have an extra effect on graft rejection, mediated by an unknown pathway, perhaps related to the fact that they are immune molecules themselves. This is hard to disprove, but against this is the fact that, where cytokine production can be blocked using drugs (for example calcineurin blockers, such as cyclosporin and tacrolimus blocking IL-2 production), this is also as effective as monoclonal therapy (Table 1), although, admittedly, cytokines other than IL-2 are also affected by these drugs. Furthermore, although some knockouts such as CD3 and CD4 do have profound effects on immune function, knockouts of a whole variety of other immune-related molecules show a similar finding of little or no effect on graft rejection, although there are fewer direct comparisons with antibody blockade (Table 2). It is interesting that, although direct comparisons are relatively few, knockout of a molecule in the donor is often as effective, or even has more effect, than knockout of the same molecule in the recipient (Table 3).Table 2: Comparison of effect on rejection of various gene knockouts in recipients versus antibody blockadeTable 3: Comparison of effect on rejection of gene knockout in donor versus recipientThe surprising outcome of the knockout studies may be revealing a fundamental point about the development of the normal immune system. The one major difference between the knockout and the specific blocking approaches is the presence of the defect during the period when the immune system is developing. An explanation for these findings would be the proposal that, during normal development, the immune system is being “set” to a “normal immune response,” which is effectively the set of signals that the immune cell expects to receive when its receptor makes contact with activating cognate ligand. For this to occur, the immune system makes use of all the immune related cells, molecules, and signaling pathways available, perhaps by running a form of “test run” immune response. Where exactly would this process be likely to occur? Because the thymus is the origin of the T-cells, which are the major players in cellular immunity, it would be a good candidate site. How would this explain the difference between knockout and specific blocking approaches? Because the immune defect is present during the development of the immune system, the setting of the baseline “normal immune response” effectively cancels out the absence of that molecule. A more specific example is that, in the presence of a normal compliment of costimulatory and cytokine molecules, these give strong signals to T-cells recognizing cognate ligand through their T-cell receptors and will be used as a major parameter to set the level of normal immune response signal. However, in the absence of one or more costimulatory or cytokine molecules, the immune system still goes ahead and sets the normal level of the immune response, this time using whatever other immune molecules are available. Subsequent major immune responses, therefore, will proceed more or less normally. However, it should be noted that this does not mean that absolutely no effect of the knockout will be seen, but that its effect will tend to be less than might be expected from the effect of monoclonal antibodies or immunosuppressive agents used to block the same molecules. These latter agents contrast to knockouts because the immune system develops normally, and when it is subsequently targeted by specific blocking agents, the deviation from the normal level of signaling is major and, consequently, the effect seen is large. The above explanation fits the available data reasonably well, but how to obtain proof and determine the exact mechanism is not clear. The development of “conditional knockouts,” such as those based on the Cre-Lox switch, has been used successfully in several nonimmunological molecular systems, and some groups are now developing this biotechnology to re-examine the role of cytokines and other molecules in immune responses (78). If much greater effects are seen by operating these conditional knockouts in the adult animal than are seen with the same deficiency present throughout development, this provides strong support for the “normal immune response setting” being a real phenomenon. However, if the conditional knockouts prove to be no more effective than permanent knockouts, the above explanation becomes unlikely, and alternative explanation(s) would need to be sought, the nature of which are not, at present, clear to this author. Derek W. R. Gray 1" @default.
• W2020071640 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2020071640 creator A5062979535 @default.
• W2020071640 date "2000-02-01" @default.
• W2020071640 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W2020071640 title "OBSERVATIONS REGARDING THE EFFECT OF TARGETED GENE DELETIONS (KNOCKOUTS) ON GRAFT REJECTION" @default.
• W2020071640 cites W175479904 @default.
• W2020071640 cites W1871479351 @default.
• W2020071640 cites W1966818078 @default.
• W2020071640 cites W1967221254 @default.
• W2020071640 cites W1969881858 @default.
• W2020071640 cites W1974000561 @default.
• W2020071640 cites W1975130840 @default.
• W2020071640 cites W1985710633 @default.
• W2020071640 cites W1990720451 @default.
• W2020071640 cites W1991209884 @default.
• W2020071640 cites W1991562873 @default.
• W2020071640 cites W1996355868 @default.
• W2020071640 cites W1999563094 @default.
• W2020071640 cites W2001868699 @default.
• W2020071640 cites W2003290155 @default.
• W2020071640 cites W2017059308 @default.
• W2020071640 cites W2017760087 @default.
• W2020071640 cites W2019446440 @default.
• W2020071640 cites W2021146940 @default.
• W2020071640 cites W2023173205 @default.
• W2020071640 cites W2023748102 @default.
• W2020071640 cites W2028306894 @default.
• W2020071640 cites W2029463812 @default.
• W2020071640 cites W2030553138 @default.
• W2020071640 cites W2031952534 @default.
• W2020071640 cites W2033875755 @default.
• W2020071640 cites W2034818671 @default.
• W2020071640 cites W2037343561 @default.
• W2020071640 cites W2057157158 @default.
• W2020071640 cites W2059787313 @default.
• W2020071640 cites W2060915551 @default.
• W2020071640 cites W2065134760 @default.
• W2020071640 cites W2067739721 @default.
• W2020071640 cites W2068069867 @default.
• W2020071640 cites W2068154221 @default.
• W2020071640 cites W2068872972 @default.
• W2020071640 cites W2069772766 @default.
• W2020071640 cites W2074795021 @default.
• W2020071640 cites W2076487515 @default.
• W2020071640 cites W2079676235 @default.
• W2020071640 cites W2079717284 @default.
• W2020071640 cites W2085621050 @default.
• W2020071640 cites W2089560808 @default.
• W2020071640 cites W2092168876 @default.
• W2020071640 cites W2103479357 @default.
• W2020071640 cites W2116829661 @default.
• W2020071640 cites W2118061894 @default.
• W2020071640 cites W2126845096 @default.
• W2020071640 cites W2128871207 @default.
• W2020071640 cites W2140413450 @default.
• W2020071640 cites W2144693788 @default.
• W2020071640 cites W2145798188 @default.
• W2020071640 cites W2170190655 @default.
• W2020071640 cites W221652524 @default.
• W2020071640 cites W2326558450 @default.
• W2020071640 cites W4255038436 @default.
• W2020071640 cites W4298264675 @default.
• W2020071640 cites W68282923 @default.
• W2020071640 doi "https://doi.org/10.1097/00007890-200002270-00042" @default.
• W2020071640 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10708137" @default.
• W2020071640 hasPublicationYear "2000" @default.
• W2020071640 type Work @default.
• W2020071640 sameAs 2020071640 @default.
• W2020071640 citedByCount "3" @default.
• W2020071640 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2020071640 hasAuthorship W2020071640A5062979535 @default.
• W2020071640 hasConcept C104317684 @default.
• W2020071640 hasConcept C203014093 @default.
• W2020071640 hasConcept C54355233 @default.
• W2020071640 hasConcept C70721500 @default.
• W2020071640 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2020071640 hasConcept C77957584 @default.
• W2020071640 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2020071640 hasConceptScore W2020071640C104317684 @default.
• W2020071640 hasConceptScore W2020071640C203014093 @default.
• W2020071640 hasConceptScore W2020071640C54355233 @default.
• W2020071640 hasConceptScore W2020071640C70721500 @default.
• W2020071640 hasConceptScore W2020071640C71924100 @default.
• W2020071640 hasConceptScore W2020071640C77957584 @default.
• W2020071640 hasConceptScore W2020071640C86803240 @default.
• W2020071640 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W2020071640 hasLocation W20200716401 @default.
• W2020071640 hasLocation W20200716402 @default.
• W2020071640 hasOpenAccess W2020071640 @default.
• W2020071640 hasPrimaryLocation W20200716401 @default.
• W2020071640 hasRelatedWork W1828691184 @default.
• W2020071640 hasRelatedWork W1991523530 @default.
• W2020071640 hasRelatedWork W2002128513 @default.
• W2020071640 hasRelatedWork W2020824267 @default.
• W2020071640 hasRelatedWork W2031436818 @default.
• W2020071640 hasRelatedWork W2075354549 @default.
• W2020071640 hasRelatedWork W2171277769 @default.

• next