Talk:Immune system/Archive 1

message: This seems very anthrocentric. Not that any mainstream resources really help. I only learned earlier this year (final year of a bio-science degree) that plants actually had immune systems. Does anybody know much about plant immunity? (I don't)--ZayZayEM 08:56, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The mammalian immune systems have many similarities, and I think this page should only make a passing notion to the fact that other organisms also have immune systems. For all intents and purposes, the human immune system is the best studied. JFW | T@lk 22:07, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plants and other freaks of nature 

message: What are we considering as the "immune system"? According to books I have at hand (Biology (6th ed) by Campbell & Reece, and Concise Histology, by Blood & Fawcett), the immune system does not include first and second line of defenses. Immunobiology by Janeway does mention innate immunity, but doesn't explicitly say this is part of the immune system, only host defenses. Therefore, according to my definition, this would mean moving a lot of information (such as physical barrier, anti-microbial proteins, innate immunity) out of the article and sticking with humoral and cell-mediated responses, which is barely mentionned. Perhaps an article on body defenses or somethinig like could be created as overview of every aspect, including the physical barrier, inflammation, innate immunology, etc. Input anyone? --jag123 13:01, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Janeway, 6th ed. has an entire chapter on innate immunity, which is most definitely part of the "immune system." (Any dicdef will include it.) Innate immunity (acidic skin, macrophages with TLRs, complement) is what protects us from nearly all pathogens; adaptive immunity only handles the rare few that survive those defenses. Any article that purports to discuss the I.S. is negligent if it doesn't discuss innate immunity. On a related note, I'm glad you've been cleaning up the more florid parts of the article, but I'd appreciate it if you'd put back the areas that discuss non-human immunity (you snipped a paragraph on bacterial restriction enzymes, for instance, which definitely qualifies. The link between immunology and REs, a standard tool in biology, is interesting in itself). Comparative material aids understanding. jdb ❋ 16:45, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: There are three separate issues here: the inclusion of innate immunity, the inclusion of infection resistence in general, and the inclusion of non-human immune systems. Regarding innate immunity: you can't explain adaptive immunity without explaining innate immunity; we can't have an article that purports to explain the "Immune system" that doesn't discuss innate immunity. Regarding the general infection resistence (such as skin) issue: the immune system writ broadly is everything involved in separating self from non-self. This includes the acidic qualities of the skin (which evolved that way for a reason). There's no need to expound upon it, but it's not something we can omit and say that we have a good summary article. Burn victims who lack functioning skin die rapidly of infection -- your T and B cells can't save you from an onslaught like that. Finally, regarding the non-human immune systems issue: An immune system is a set of mechanisms for distinguishing between self and non-self, and eliminating (some of) the latter. Humans have a bunch of specialized organs and cell types involved in this process; bacteria have (among other things) restriction enzymes. As it stood before your edits, this was an article on immune systems in general; if you want an article that talks about the human immune system in particular, you're welcome to start Human immune system.  jdb ❋ 19:43, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: If you "don't really see the problem of discussing acquired immunity without having to mention innate immunity", then I think you ought to read a recent book on immunology. Your (adaptive IS) B and T cells are nowhere without the innate IS. Your T cells are useless without antigen-presenting cells to activate them; your B cells are crippled without T-cell mediated somatic hypermutation and isotype switching. Your APCs are part of the innate immune system; the mechanisms they use (TLRs, for instance) to detect danger are part of the innate immune system. jdb ❋ 21:15, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As a follow-up, Janeway's Immunobiology, 6th ed., p.765, says "The immune system is the name used to describe the tissues, cells, and molecules involved in adaptive immunity, or sometimes the totality of host defense mechanisms." So either of our interepretations would pass muster. I'm inclined to err on the side of a broader definition -- since we can explain everything in linked articles, the main Immune system article shouldn't be terribly detailed about any mechanism, adaptive or not. jdb ❋ 21:36, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Please don't insert stuff in the middle of my posts. I don't even see where I supposedly "muddled" the water. My definition passes muster according to (now) four sources; yours passes muster according to one, and only because the author added "sometimes". I'm very well aware of the role of the innate and the adaptive immune system and I don't need to go read a good book to see the connection. Everything in the whole body is interconnected. Perhaps we should talk about the heart, since it pumps the blood, which is vital for distributing these cells around the body. Of course, without blood, there's no lymph, another important factor. I can see the title now: "The crucial role of actin proteins in the immune system: A critical component in the muscle contraction mechanism used by the organ responsible for the proper and complete delivery throughout the body of the medium used by immune system cells as transport." Both can exist seperately. If they couldn't, they wouldn't be divided into "innate" and "adaptive". The article on "immune system" should not discuss restriction enzymes, primary or secondary lines of defense. I can understand that maybe "sometimes" people define "immune system" as including all of those, but that's really not good enough of a reason to include it here. I can read a hundred books on immunology but until the definition changes, I'm not going to change my mind. There's absolutely nothing wrong with moving that information into another article, such as Host defense, where people can mention any and all aspects of defense mechanisms, whether vertebrate, microbial, vegetable, whatever. --jag123 23:00, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: I suggest that you take a deep breath. This isn't a contest. jdb ❋ 01:33, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What is the immune system

message: After reading the article, I have some unanswered questions:
* It's commonly believed that being in a cold environment leads to impaired immunity.  Whether or not this is true, the state of research on this topic should be included.
* This short NPR piece implies that drier air dehydrates mucus, reducing the effectiveness of immune response.  Is this well documented?
* A version of this article back in January raised the question of how the immune system knows not to attack the offspring during pregnancy, but it looks like that material was entirely deleted.  Inquiring minds would like to know.
* The section on "Other factors that affect immune response" made some very vague claims.  I started to clean it up, but it still has some gaps.  It will also need references to Wikipedia articles or other sources that document its claims.  We still need to know, for example:
** What types of "poor eating habits" reduce immune response?  Just deficiencies?  If so, which?
** What types of radiation cause immune problems?  The article that is currently linked to is just a disambiguation page.
** What toxins other than cigarette smoke can cause immune problems?
-- Beland 03:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion request 

message: I made a bunch of changes to the page, but it still needs a lot more.  I'll try to do a little here and there when I get a chance, but if someone else could jump in that would be great too.  I agree we need some pictures.--ColForbin 03:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why did someone copy and paste all of that text?  Simple links to the pages in question would have sufficed! I'll try to fix it, but it sure is annoying.  --ColForbin 23:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am currently a fifth year Immunology PhD student. And while I don't usually write Wikipedia articles about science, I can see that my help might be needed here (that whooshing sound you hear is my Immunology Girl™ cape (yes, I am a big nerd)). I will do what I can to correct the inaccuracies I have spotted, and hopefully to improve the article as a whole. I will also try to include answers to some of the great questions posed above. Any feedback or concerns that you might have would be greatly appreciated. --DO11.10 18:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs Cleanup

message: As I promised above, I have cleaned up this article (a lot). I expanded some sections that needed it, and removed some information appeared to be copy-and-pasted from the "main articles" on various subjects. 
This article DOES need some pictures, I think some of the sections are just too complicated to explain without diagrams. I will see if I can find some, or else just make them. Specifically, I think that diagrams for the following sections would help emmensly:
*Antigen presentation
*CD8 and CD4 Activation 
*Th1 vs Th2 
*B cell Activation 
Also it would be nice if we could include pictures of the various types of innate cells. 
If anyone sees/has/can make any of these please post 'em!!--DO11.10 22:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article clean up and expansion  

message: As this article is about the immune system, and "the skin is the first line of difense", wouldn't it make sense to start off with the skin section? Nothing in the skin section depends on the information in the lymph section, so I think the lymph section should be either removed or deleted. E946 07:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flow of information 

message: "These reactions are mediated by T cells, monocytes and macrophages." Monocytes and macrophages are the same thing, they're called monocytes when they're in the blood, macrophages when they're in certain tissues, pulmonary macrophages in the lung, Langerhans cells in skin, Kupfer cells in the liver etc. Therefore, it should not be listed twice as both monocytes and macrophages.--KX36 17:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hypersensitivity section 

message: I removed the following from the article for a number of reasons:
In December 2006 researchers from Toronto Hospital for Sick Children showed in mice a link between Type 1 diabetes and both the Immune and Nervous systems. Lack of sensory (pain-related) nerves seemed to provoke an immune response in the insulin-producing cells.
Reasons for removal:
# This is about one article about one aspect of one autoimmune disease (which are given only brief mention in this article, owing to the existence of the article autoimmunity where specifics are addressed), and it's inclusion here places undue weight on the findings. 
# The addition, as written, seems to imply that a link between the Immune system and T1D was  established just last week, when in reality this connection was made many, many years ago (IIRC in the early 1970's). Really the authors show a link between a neuronal receptor and the development of diabetes, they don't really say (at least in the abstract) how the immune system is involved.
As a note: The actual Cell article seems to state a conclusion that is exactly opposite of what was added. Namely that "...Eliminating these neurons in diabetes-prone NOD mice prevents insulitis and diabetes, despite systemic persistence of pathogenic T cell pools." i.e. "Lack of sensory (pain-related) nerves seemed to prevent an immune response in the insulin-producing cells".--DO11.10 23:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  removal of "diabetes link" 

message: This article is either too narrow or should acknowledge that it isn't all-encompassing. It doesn't mention that it is only talking about humans, and the second paragraph says that it defends us against bacteria and viruses, when in fact is also fights protists, fungi, and possibly animals (I'm not sure-- can we fight worms?) 71.252.43.16 00:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One gets specifically an elevation in the eosinophil subtype of white blood cell with parasitic or worm infestations. Not sure it actual acheives much though David Ruben  Talk  01:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too narrow 

message: It's not optimal to have a section heading called "Overview" - unencyclopedic - can that section be re-named, or the content be merged to section names more in line with those mentioned at WP:MEDMOS ?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Section renamed. TimVickers 01:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Chg section heading

message: Not sure this last paragraph belongs under this subheading - maybe a separate subheading for immune evasion is needed??
:The barriers established by innate immune system are brought into play at the earliest stages of infection and provide immediate defense against colonization. Many pathogens, however, have developed strategies that allow them to elude or escape from innate immune control.[29] These evasion strategies include intracellular replication, such as in Salmonella or a protective capsule that prevents lysis by complement, as in Mycobacterium tuberculosis.[30]
Ciar 01:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cellular barriers?

message: Hi all, the article is looking pretty good already — well done, all!
I'm pretty sure that the immune system responds to hormonal signals, and it'd be nice if there were some discussion of that in the article.  Unfortunately, I'm pretty sick now and don't have access to a library anyway, so I can't help out too much. :(  But I do recall that there can be direct effects on the immune system and indirect effects, e.g., by changing the relative microbial populations in the vaginal tract.
Good luck, Willow 22:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hormonal regulation of the immune system?

message: Okay, so I removed the term 'markers' from the phrase 'MHC markers' and replaced it with the conventional 'MHC molecules'.  In cell biology, scientists use the term marker to describe a protein expressed on the surface of a cell that can be used to help distinguish that particular cell.  This is because each different type of cell carries a distinct combination of cell surface proteins - these are often receptors, and often denoted with a CD prefix.  Here's a common example; within the T cells, there are helper and cytotoxic subtypes.  They function differently, and they can be distinguished from other lymphocytes and each other based on their cell surface molecules or markers.  All T cells can be recognized by a marker called CD3 (part of the TCR complex) that is only expressed on T cells; all helper T cells have CD3 and CD4 markers, and all cytotoxic T cells have CD3 and CD8 markers. It can get more complex, but hopefully this explains things simply.  MHC molecules are not typically used as markers.  MHC class I molecules, for instance, tend to be expressed on all cell types so would be a poor candidate for cell recognition!  Phew...hope this is of help!!!  Ciar 04:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, you are right. I probably put that in there because I use MHC class I and II as "markers", (generally to determine/confirm DC maturation state, in conjunction with other, more specific "markers") and thus that is how I think of them. Thanks for your careful reading, good catch.--DO11.10 22:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cell markers

message: I can see why some people would vandalize Bush's article or Hitler's or sept 11 conspiracies... But why this one? It doesn't make sense....
--Carbonrodney 07:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it's featured on the main page. =) Berserkerz Crit 08:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some one please change the  to  template. It really hurts my eyes :(--129.69.36.89 12:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mine, too. :(  But I think  is meant only for pages that are protected long-term, which is not the case here.  The explanation at the top of the page also helps newcomers understand why they can't edit the page.  Disappointing, I know.  Willow 13:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Good article it entertained and informed me.  There is one thing I noticed though.  When CD8 was discussed as a co-receptor for MHC I receptors.  That is in correct, CD8 is not a co-receptor (such as B7/CD28 complex) but is a co-stimulator (ie. CD3 complex). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.140.46.164 (talk) 14:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While CD8 does indeed enhance stimulation of the T-cell, I think that the proper terminology is still "co-receptor". Here is what Janeway's Immunobiology (Part II, Chapter 3) says: "CD8 binds MHC class I molecules and can bind simultaneously to the same class I MHC:peptide complex being recognized by a T-cell receptor, thus acting as a co-receptor and enhancing the T-cell response."--DO11.10 17:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps the sentence should read "Recognition of this MHC:antigen complex is aided by a co-receptor on the T cell, called CD8, [which also helps to activate the T cell]."--DO11.10 17:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi! Just noticed the query and thought I'd add a little to help! Couldn't help but notice you describe, in the question, CD28 as a co-receptor and CD8 as co-stimulator - but I think you may have mixed these up.  As DO11.10 correctly points out, CD8 is a co-receptor since it aids the T cell receptor in its interaction with MHC, while CD28 is a co-stimulatory molecule that provides a separate secondary signal to the T cell by interacting with the B7 molecules on the surface of the antigen presenting cell. Ciar 20:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  One Thing 

message: It seems that the page has been vandalized, there's a bunch of words dispersed throughout the text that are out of place or offensive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nimrod88 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup needed 

message: I wanted to thank the authors of this article. It is informative, well written and just brilliant. Thank you. --82.41.42.96 20:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great article! 

message: Hi, I have put this article under the scope of the WikiProject Systems because of the formal relation, but more because of the inspiring and motivating example this article can give our project and it's participants (to come). We are still a small and beginning group, and working to get our own toko going. In due time I hope we can also deliver a valuable contributions here from our point of view. In the mean time I wish all of you all te best. Best regards - Mdd 20:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article within the scope of the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Systems|WikiProjects Systems]] 

message: Nutritional immunology is an emerging field in the nutritional sciences that studies the effects of dietary ingredients on the immune system. Many ingredients in the diet may affect the immune system. Among the most notable discoveries in this field is a recent one made by scientists at the University of California at Berkeley about Diindolylmethane (DIM) in Brassica vegetables. DIM has been shown to induce Interferon-Gamma Receptor expression, Interferon-Gamma production and synergize with Interferon-Gamma in the expression of the MHC-I complex. For years nutritional scientists had noted that individuals who consume Brassica vegetables have a significantly lower risk of cancer than the average population. This discovery regarding DIM's immune modulating activity helps to shed light on this phenomenon and has led to the investigation of this compound as a therapeutic for viral and bacterial infections and multiple forms of cancer. What appears notable from a biomedical research point of view is the potential of DIM as an adjuvant to Interferon-Gamma therapeutic models given its synergy with IFN-G in the expression of the MHC-I complex. More information regarding DIM and its immune modulating properties as a dietary ingredient is available at: The Diindolylmethane Information Resource Center at the University of California, Berkeley.
I've removed this section to the talk page while we verify if this is true or not. The link to an external commercial site 
makes it possible that this is spam. TimVickers 16:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nutritional immunology

message: Does this article belong to be a part of the anatomy wikiproject? I added the cardio (arteries,veins), digestive(gut,stomach), endocrine(hormones and glands) systems in the anatomy wikiproject as i thought they belong (if you think otherwise dont hesistate to change them).... but as i approached this article it seemed a bit wrong to make this article a part of anatomy wikiproject..Any thoughts?...(Ps.. im working my way to add obvious anatomy articles into the anatomy wikiproject and i found a easy way to add them through the Human anatomy article (big lists at the very bottom) )calaka 07:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes this article belongs under anatomy because there are specialized organs (thymus, spleen, adrenal cortex, lymph nodes) and cells (lymphocytes, macrophages, etc) that are part of the immune system.  Much of the article is on physiology, but the same can be said about other anatomical structures, in the digestive system, for example. Greensburger 01:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent response, i added it in the project accordingly :). calaka 06:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: anatomy wikiproject

message: *Stem Cell Transplant Can Grow New Immune System In Certain Mice
This doesn't really belong as an external link, however is this an important enough advance to be incorporated into the article? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Press release

message: Intrinsic immunity is emerging as a new and important branch of the immune system, particularly in response to viral infections. Because it is still a new field no one has even created an article about it, but this needs to change. This article should include a section about intrinsic immunity. Hopefully I'll get around to adding it soon, but in the meantime I encourage anyone else with knowledge in this area to add a section to this article and/or create a separate intrinsic immunity page.Orb4peace (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Intrinsic Immunity Needs to be Discussed Here!

message: This sentence is at the end of Tumor immunology :
a combination of hypoxia in the tumor and a cytokine produced by macrophages induces tumor cells to decrease production of a protein that blocks metastasis and thereby assists spread of cancer cells.
It would, however, be interesting to know the name of the protein, as well as the cytokine. It doesn't need to be in the article, making it more complicated, but  a cytokine  would suffice. Mikael Häggström (talk) 10:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the name of this protein? 

message: I couldn't seem to find anything about the immune system's response to macroscopic problems, such as mites, burrowing insects, flukes, or even things like splinters or fragments. Does anyone else think a section like that would be useful? 70.70.145.85 (talk) 23:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Macroscopic response 

message: The sentence at the end of the introduction, "These critical roles of immunology in health and disease are areas of intense scientific study," seemed to make rather sudden change of the subject. It would be improved by substituting the sentences I put for the previous one.
Immunology covers the study of all aspects of the immune system which has significant relevance to human health and diseases. Further investigation in this field is expected to play a serious role in promotion of health and treatment of diseases. --Tossh eng (talk) 01:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the sentence at the end of the introduction 

message: The sentence at the end of the subsection "B lymphocytes and antibodies":"CD20 antigen is also found on B lymphocytes." has little relavance to the context. Some explanation about CD20 needs to be made? --Tossh eng (talk) 00:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - the sentence looked out of place and seemed unlikely to add anything useful to this article.  I removed it altogether! ~ Ciar ~ (Talk to me!) 02:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  CD20 on the B cell 

message: The image of the antibody shown is not very clear. One disulphide bond has been shown which gives the wrong impression that only one disulphide bond is present in an antibody. It does not show several other features as well. If anyone has a better picture please upload it.Proquence (talk) 10:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there an image you'd prefer in the antibody article? Tim Vickers (talk) 17:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How about :Image:Immunoglobulin basic unit.svg, caption and all? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The image :Image:Immunoglobulin basic unit.svg is better, but can we have an image of IgG1 showing all the three Constant regions, hinge region and all the disulphide bonds? The image I found here  is much more accurate, unfortunately it appears to be copyrighted. Can we have anything close to this? Proquence (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image of Antibody

message: Help please, article cleanup and verification needed. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Cytokine storm]]

message: In the article it is stated that "AIDS and some types of cancer cause acquired immunodeficiency."  Would it not be more correct to say 'HIV and some types of cancer cause acquired immunodeficiency.'?  Dionyseus (talk) 07:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  AIDS and some types of cancer cause acquired immunodeficiency ? 

message: This section talks about immunological memory where a pathogen is remembered. How does the memory cells know that it's their turn to fight? Is it trial and error or something identifies which antigen should be used (if so who stores this information and takes the decision)? It seems, these things are not described in the article. Ahirwav (talk) 08:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Adaptive Immune System (Memory)

message: There appears to be no section about the evolution/origin of the immune system. I know there is lots of scientific information and literature on this subject and an addition to the article would be fantastic! I do not have enough knowledge on this particular subject but I know there are experts on it. Research on this of course comes up with a lot of hits on intelligent design and pseudo-science-like sources. The purpose however, would not be to discuss anything about this social controversy. 
Articles on the subject: 
*http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/324/5927/580
*http://en.scientificcommons.org/44191779
*http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6695/full/394744a0_r.html
*http://www.roitt.com/elspdf/Evolution_of_the_human_immune_system.pdf
Thoughts? Comments? Expertise? Andrew Colvin (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolution/origin of the immune system 

message: That picture of Paul Ehrlich is rather large. Someone with more tech know-how should probably make it a bit smaller.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.231.17 (talk) 07:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture