A few days ago I explained how an evolutionary change in our hominid ancestors could explain a spectacular surprise failure of a clinical drug trial. At last, I see that the paper is now online
Thanks for the link. I found the paper really interesting, but I’m not completely convinced that Siglics explain the discrepancies between chimp and human T cell responses.
To stimulate the T-cells in vitro, they treated the cells with immobialized (meaning bound to the culture dish) anti-CD3 antibody and soluble anti-CD28 to mimic T cell receptor and accessory molecule recognition normally provided by an antigen presenting cell.
CD3/CD28 antibody treatment is certainly more physiologic than using PHA, but it still involves binding CD3 and CD28 with antibodies, not their natural ligands. Is it possible that Siglic-5 expressed on transfected human T cells bound the soluble CD28 antibody, thus depriving the T-cells of a necessary second activation signal? I’m sure their reviewers asked that question.
Also it would have been interesting to see if knocking down Siglics on the surface of chimp T-cells makes them easier to activate. I think that data would be a lot more convincing than the overexpression data they presented.
The idea that a lack Siglics contribute to humans’ susceptibility to disease is certainly interesting, and I look forward to subsequent work on this topic, especially the evolutionary basis for loss of Siglics.
The site is undergoing maintenance presently. Commenting has been disabled. Please check back later!
Okay–after some technical difficulties I won’t bore you by recounting, I have an announcement. For the…
Really, it’s not like I’ve discovered a new element or anything. See you tomorrow.
…to spill beans. Any minute now, honest.
…at 5 today. [That's 5 pm EST--sorry for the confusion.]
[Hint...I've turned off the comments till then.]
I’m sure you’d like to pretend that you have nothing in common with a tapeworm.