Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The evolutionary context for a self–nonself discrimination

  • Visions & Reflections
  • Published:
Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 31 July 2010

Abstract

This essay was written to illustrate how one might think about the immune system. The formulation of valid theories is the basic component of how-to-think because the reduction of large and complex data sets by the use of logic into a succinct model with predictability and explanatory power, is the only way that we have to arrive at “understanding”. Whether it is to achieve effective manipulation of the system or for pure pleasure, “understanding” is a universally agreed upon goal. It is in the nature of science that theories are there to be disproven. An experimentally disproven theory is a successful one. As they fail experimental test one by one, we end up with a default theory, that is, one that has yet to fail. Here, using the self–nonself discrimination as an example, how-to-think as I see it, will be illustrated.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cohn M, Langman RE (2002) To be or not to be ridded?—That is the question addressed by the associative antigen recognition model. Scand J Immunol 55:318–323

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Cohn M (2002) The immune system: a weapon of mass destruction invented by evolution to even the odds during the war of the DNAs. Immunol Revs 185:24–38

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Langman RE, Cohn M (1993) A theory of the ontogeny of the chicken humoral immune system: the consequences of diversification by gene hyperconversion and its extension to rabbit. Res Immunol 144:421–446

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Cohn M (2007) Conceptualizing the self–nonself discrimination by the vertebrate immune system. In: Timmis J, Flower D (eds) In silico immunology. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 375–398

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Cohn M (2005) The common sense of the self–nonself discrimination. Springer Semin Immunopathol 27:3–17

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bretscher P, Cohn M (1970) A theory of self–nonself discrimination. Science 169:1042–1049

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lederberg J (1959) Genes and antibodies. Science 129:1649–1653

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Cohn M (2009) On the opposing views of the self–nonself discrimination by the immune system. Immunol Cell Biol 87:113–119

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Cohn M (2009) The discussion with Jacques Miller: illustrating the limitations of pure empiricism. Immunol Cell Biol 87:435–437

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Cohn M (2009) Why Aire? Compensating for late bloomers. Eur J Immunol 39:1–4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Guerau-de-Arellano M, Martinic M, Benoist C, Mathis D (2009) Neonatal tolerance revisited: a perinatal window for Aire control of autoimmunity. JEM 206:1245–1252

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Cohn M, Langman RE (1990) The protection: the evolutionarily selected unit of humoral immunity. Immunol Rev 115:1–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Cohn M, Langman RE, Mata J (2002) A computerized model for the self–nonself discrimination at the level of the T-helper (Th-genesis). I. The origin of “primer” effector T-helpers. Int’l. Int Immunol 14:1105–1112

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Langman RE, Mata JJ, Cohn M (2003) A computerized model for the self–nonself discrimination at the level of the T-helper (Th genesis) II. The behavior of the system upon encounter with nonself antigens. Int Immun 15:593–609

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Cohn M (1983) Antibody diversity 1983: some elementary considerations. In: Yamamura Y, Tada T (eds) Progress in immunology V. Academic Press, Orlando, FL, pp 839–851

    Google Scholar 

  16. Langman RE (1989) The immune system. Academic Press, San Diego

    Google Scholar 

  17. Cohn M (1992) The self–nonself discrimination: reconstructing a cabbage from sauerkraut. Res Immunol 143:323–334

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Cohn M (2001) Logic of the self–nonself discrimination: principles and history. In: Cambrosio A, Moulin A (eds) Dialogues with selves. Historical issues and contemporary debates in immunology. Editions Elsevier, France, pp 53–85

    Google Scholar 

  19. Langman RE (1987) The self–nonself discrimination is not regulated by suppression. Cell Immunol 108:214–219

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Cohn M (2004) Whither T-suppressors: if they didn’t exist would we have to invent them? Cell Immunol 227:81–92

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Cohn M (2008) What roles do regulatory T-cells play in the control of the adaptive immune response? Int Immunol 20:1107–1118

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Mitchison NA, O’Malley C (1987) Three-cell-type clusters of T cells with antigen-presenting cells best explain the epitope linkage and noncognate requirements of the in vivo cytolytic response. Eur J Immunol 17:1579–1583

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Bretscher PA (1999) A two-step, two-signal model for the primary activation of precursor helper T cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96:185–190

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Cohn M (2009) How does the immune response get started? Cell Immunol 254:91–93

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Cohn M (2006) Does the signal for the activation of T cells originate from the antigen-presenting cell or the effector T-helper? Cell Immunol 241:1–6

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Brent L (1997) A history of transplantation immunology. Academic Press, San Diego

    Google Scholar 

  27. Cohn M (2008) A rationalized set of default postulates that permit a coherent description of the immune system amenable to computer modeling. Scan J Immunol 68:371–380

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Matzinger P (2003) The real function of the immune system or tolerance and the four D’s (danger, death, destruction, and distress)

  29. Matzinger P (2002) The danger model: a renewed sense of self. Science 296:301–304

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Janeway CA, Goodnow CC, Medzhitov R (1996) Immunological tolerance: danger—pathogen on the premises! Curr Biol 6:519–522

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Janeway CA (1992) The immune system evolved to discriminate infectious nonself from noninfectious self. Immunol Today 13:11–16

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Zinkernagel RM (2004) On ‘reactivity’ versus ‘tolerance’. Immunol Cell Biol 82:343–352

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Zinkernagel RM, Hengartner H (2004) On immunity against infections and vaccines: credo 2004. Scand J Immunol 60:9–13

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Dembic Z (2000) Immune system protects integrity of tissues. Mol Immunol 37:563–569

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Dembic Z (1996) Do we need integrity? Scand J Immunol 44:549–550

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Nevo U, Hauben E (2007) Ecoimmunity: immune tolerance by symmetric co-evolution. Evol Dev 9:632–642

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Cunliffe J (2006) Tissue homeostasis and immunity—more on models. Scand J Immunol 64:172–176

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Grossman Z, Paul WE (2001) Autoreactivity, dynamic tuning and selectivity. Curr Opin Immunol 13:687–698

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Jerne NK (1971) The somatic generation of immune recognition. Eur J Immunol 1:1–9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Jerne NK (1970) Generation of antibody diversity and self tolerance. In: Smith RT, Landy M (eds) Immune surveillance. Academic Press, Augusta, MI, pp 343–436

    Google Scholar 

  41. Cohen IR (1992) The cognitive principle challenges clonal selection. Immuol Today 13:441–444

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Cohen IR (1992) The cognitive paradigm and the immunological homunculus. Immunol Today 13:490–494

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Eichmann K (2008) The network collective, rise and fall of a scientific paradigm. Birkhauser, Berlin

  44. Howes M (1998) The self of philosophy and the self of immunology. Perspect Biol Med 42:118–131

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Tauber AI (1997) Historical and philosophical perspectives concerning immune cognition. J Hist Biol 30:419–440

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by a grant (RR07716) from the National Center For Research Resources (NCRR), a component of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not represent the official view of NCRR or NIH.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Conceptual Immunology Group, The Salk Institute for Biological Studies, 10010 North Torrey Pines Road, La Jolla, CA, 92037, USA

    Melvin Cohn

Authors
  1. Melvin Cohn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Melvin Cohn.

Additional information

An erratum to this article can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00018-010-0474-8

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cohn, M. The evolutionary context for a self–nonself discrimination. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 67, 2851–2862 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00018-010-0438-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00018-010-0438-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation