STRAIN DIFFERENCES IN THE EXPRESSION OF THE EPA-1-RESTRICTING ELEMENT

Epa-1-specific cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTL) lyse epidermal cells (EC) of different Epa-1 + H-2 k strains, such as AKR, CBA, C58, and RF, at different levels. We used an H-2K k -specific monoclonal antibody (mAb) to test the hypothesis that this phenomenon is due to differences in the H-2-restricting element. Initially, we established the specificity of this mAb for the Epa-1-restricting element by demonstrating its capacity to inhibit the lysis of CBA EC by Epa-1-specific CTL. We then used it as the probe in a cellular radioimmunoassay to quantify the expression of the restricting element by EC of different H-2 k strains. We found that C58 and RF EC bound significantly less of the mAb than did CBA EC. Although AKR also bound less of the mAb than did CBA EC, the difference was not statistically significant. To examine the generality of this phenomenon, we quantified the expression of K k antigens on spleen cells (SC) of the same four strains. We found that RF SC, but not AKR or C58 SC, bound significantly less of the K k mAb than did CBA SC. Thus, the differential CTL lysis of Epa-1 + EC of different strains probably reflects differences in expression of the H-2-restricting element rather than of the nominal antigen.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/75485/1/j.1744-313X.1987.tb00375.x.pd

The Self Model and the Conception of Biological Identity in Immunology

The self/non-self model, first proposed by F.M. Burnet, has dominated immunology for sixty years now. According to this model, any foreign element will trigger an immune reaction in an organism, whereas endogenous elements will not, in normal circumstances, induce an immune reaction. In this paper we show that the self/non-self model is no longer an appropriate explanation of experimental data in immunology, and that this inadequacy may be rooted in an excessively strong metaphysical conception of biological identity. We suggest that another hypothesis, one based on the notion of continuity, gives a better account of immune phenomena. Finally, we underscore the mapping between this metaphysical deflation from self to continuity in immunology and the philosophical debate between substantialism and empiricism about identity

History of clinical transplantation

How transplantation came to be a clinical discipline can be pieced together by perusing two volumes of reminiscences collected by Paul I. Terasaki in 1991-1992 from many of the persons who were directly involved. One volume was devoted to the discovery of the major histocompatibility complex (MHC), with particular reference to the human leukocyte antigens (HLAs) that are widely used today for tissue matching.1 The other focused on milestones in the development of clinical transplantation.2 All the contributions described in both volumes can be traced back in one way or other to the demonstration in the mid-1940s by Peter Brian Medawar that the rejection of allografts is an immunological phenomenon.3,4 © 2008 Springer New York