Talk:Immune system

Template:Oldpeerreview

What would an individual immunity be called? Ie: someone who is immune to, oh, say rattlesnake venom? That might be a bad example. But I can't thoink of a better one. Does every person have to encounter the foreign objects to then gain immunity, or can some be inherited - or passed via the mother (that stuff that comes before milk starts up). If everyone has to encounter the foreign agents - what about children who eat peanut butter to early and become allergic to peanut (oils?)
~ender

Immunity obtained by passage of immunoglobulins from the mother (in utero or through breast feeding) is called "passive immunity". Immunity obtained by exposure to antigens is called "active immunity". An individual immunity is "specific immunity". Rattlesnake venom, however, is a toxin which produces its effects pharmacologically rather than immunologically. -- Someone else 19:40, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

That's the problem I was thinking of with my Venom example :\

I'm assuming this will all be explained in the article? :)

~ender 2003-08-17 13:37:MST

Only if someone gets ambitious<G>. Immunology makes my eyes glaze over. -- Someone else 20:38, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

However, you could become 'immune' to a particular snake venom by repeatedly exposing yourself to sub-lethal doses of venom. You'll raise antibodies that recognize and inactivate the venom. When you get anti-venom, for instance, it's purified antibodies to a particular snake venom that they obtained by repeatedly injecting some animal (horses, sometimes) with doses of snake venom that would not kill the horse.--fhayashi 13:10, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Believe it or not, that is usually called an "individual immunity". Despite what you may think, (biological) science doesn't go out of its way to make up words for simple concepts.

Colostrum, as well as mother's milk, and foetal food all contain certain amounts of transmissible immunoglobulins, thus conferring immunity via vertical transmission.

Codes for antibodies are also inside the genome, as well as codes for other immune receptors that provide 'innate' aspects specific immunity, and 'specific' aspects of innate immunity. In fact, if you don't actually contain the right genes, you will never be able to raise antibodies to certain foreign agents--ZZ 02:37, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm making some changes to reflect a more unbiased look at the duality of innate and adaptive immunity. There is nothing primitive or less specific in innate immunity compared to adaptive immunity. --Fhayashi 17:48, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Contents

1 Immune system 1 Plants and other freaks of nature 2 Peer review 3 What is the immune system

Immune system

This page is totally misguided, wrong, and out of date. Most of the information is incorrect. Please read a good immunology reference text to correct it. Template:Wikipedia:Peer review/Immune system

Plants and other freaks of nature

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)

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)

Peer review

Following the annoying VFD notice, I do think this page needs major overhaul. There is a lot of material with very little structure.

Some points:

• Start with a clear outline:
  • forms of immunity, e.g. specific vs. nonspecific)
  • organs involved
  • cell types involved
  • physiology (forms of immune reaction, e.g. anaphylactoid vs delayed-type, Th1 vs Th2)
  • pathology (autoimmunity, immune deficiency)
  • analysis of immune function
  • medical modulation of immune response (e.g. vaccination, immune suppression, cytokines)
• This outline can then be filled from a few reliable sources that are readily accessible to the average library visitor or internet user. Let's please avoid 400 references for all sorts of fringe POVs.
• We will get punished for making errors, not for leaving out tiny details. This article is only an overview, with pointers to subarticles of relevance.

Which authors would like to help? I'd love to, but my main contributions will probably not come until after April. JFW | T@lk 22:07, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I quickly glanced at the article and it does need some updating, which I plan to do. Some claims by the author of the VfD are wrong:

• B cells are named for bone marrow, as opposed to T cells that come from and proliferate in the thymus.

  Incorrect. The "B" originally stood for bursa of Fabricius, an organ in birds in which B cells mature. T cells do NOT "come from" the thymus -- they undergo development in the thymus, but, like all cells in the blood, they come from hematopoetic stem cells in the bone marrow. jdb ❋ 23:16, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Description of neutrophil is correct
• Innate section is lacking current information, but acquired seems correct

I think much of the information was taken from an older textbook or something, but it's not intentionally wrong or an embarassment. --jag123 16:00, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I disagree. As hysterical as the VfDer was, the article was in pretty bad shape. He certainly prompted me to make some changes. jdb ❋ 23:16, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

After actually reading the article, I have to agree with you jdb; it is in bad shape. Regarding B cells, I've seen many references to B standing for "bone marrow" and never (up until now) to bursa of fabricius. Do you have a reference as to who coined the term? I'm not arguing that it's false, but since the bone marrow "origin" is so commonly used, it'd be nice to settle this misconception. By the way, T cells do come from the thymus. A few migrate from the bone marrow into the thymus and proliferate, so that means that all of the T cells circulating in the blood actually come from the thymus. That's like saying osteoblasts don't come from the periosteum because their distant ancestors originated from marrow stromal cells. Don't be so pedantic. --jag123 12:15, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What is the immune system

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)

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)

A book on immunobiology might be negligent if it didn't discuss innate immunity and all the other lines of defense, but this isn't a book, it's an article on the immune system, not the body's defenses. On your related note, there is no way bacterial restriction enzymes compares to the human immune system. REs (and their use as a tool in biochemistry/immunology) is quite interesting, but that doesn't mean it's relevant here. Vomiting and diarrhea is an effective way for the body to get rid of pathogens in the stomach and gut, does that belong here? What about the role of tree bark? At this point, I have three reliable sources (two books from above, plus Webster's dictionnary) that define "immune system" in the same way, so apart from Janeway's chapter that talks about a bunch of stuff, do you have any other reasons why the information you re-added should be kept, or why the article should discuss primary or secondary line of defenses? --jag123 17:38, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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)

Your definition of immune system comes from where, exactly? The definition I'm using doesn't mention "human", so I don't see why I need to create another article elsewhere because you don't like what I'm saying. [I separated the "human" from "innate" issues above for a reason. Don't mix them up; it muddies the water. jdb ❋ 21:15, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)] I don't get it; this article gets nomatined on VfD because it's filled with wrong information, and your solution is to keep the wrong information in there? I don't really see the problem of discussing acquired immunity without having to mention innate immunity. The body encounters a pathogen and "learns" to recognise it. Is it absolutely crucial to explain how the pathogen got there or why it wasn't terminated earlier? Will readers be completly lost if that info isn't mentionned? I don't believe so. It seems most people associate "immune system" with everything that defends the body but that's simply not true. --jag123 20:13, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I suggest that you take a deep breath. This isn't a contest. jdb ❋ 01:33, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)