Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T19:32:10.719Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An appraisal of survival strategies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 August 2011

N. A. Mitchison
N. A. Mitchison
Affiliation:
ICRF Tumour Immunology Unit, Department of Zoology, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Only a few years ago parasite immunology looked an unattractive subject better left to the dogged specialists. Parasites and hosts had been playing chess together for a million years, and there seemed little prospect of perturbing matters in favour of the host immune system. All that has changed, for three reasons. Firstly, we have learned how to grow at least some parasites in vitro, and prospects of doing so with others are encouraging. Secondly, progress in cellular immunology has revealed the sort of loopholes in the host defence system which parasites are likely to exploit: we are learning the questions which matter about parasites as antigens. Thirdly, and most importantly, molecular genetics is being brought to bear on parasites: we can now see a real, though long-term, prospect of manufacturing practicable vaccines through bio-engineering, and more immediately it gives us the tools needed to probe the host immune responses in the form of cloned antigens.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 88 , Issue 4: Symposia of the British Society for Parasitology Volume 21: Parasite evasion of the immune response , August 1984 , pp. 575 - 577
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Mehra, V., Mason, L. H., Rothman, W., Reinherz, E., Schlossman, S. F. & Bloom, B. R. (1980). Delineation of a human T cell subset responsible for lepromin-induced suppression in leprosy patients. Journal of Immunology 125, 1183–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muraguchi, A., Butler, J. L., Kehrl, J. H. & Fauci, A. S. (1983). Differential sensitivity of human B cell subsets to activation signals delivered by anti-μ antibody and proliferative signals delivered by a monoclonal B cell growth factor. Journal of Experimental Medicine 157, 530–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nath, I. & Singh, R. (1980). The suppressive effect of M. leprae on the in vitro proliferative responses of lymphocytes from patients with leprosy. Clinical and Experimental Immunology 41, 406–14.Google ScholarPubMed
Okada, M., Sakaguchi, N., Yoshimura, N., Hara, H., Shimizu, K., Yoshida, N., Yoshizaki, K., Kishimoto, S., Yamamura, Y. & Kishimoto, T. (1983). B cell growth factors and B cell differentiation factor from human T hybridomas. Journal of Experimental Medicine 157, 583–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sercarz, E. E., Yowell, R. L., Turkin, P., Miller, A., Araneo, B. A. & Adorini, L. (1978). Different functional specificity repertoires for suppressor and helper T cells. Immunology Reviews 39, 108–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taniguchi, T., Matsui, H., Fujita, T., Takaoka, C., Kashima, N., Yoshimoto, R. & Hamuro, J. (1983). Structure and expression of a cloned eDNA for human interleukin-2. Nature, London 302, 305–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weaver, M., Singhai, R., Sikora, L. & Levy, J. C. (1983). Identification of an idiotypic marker of a major regulatory T cell of the immune response in B10.BR mice to ferredoxin. Journal of Experimental Medicine 157, 285–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar