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
- Log in to post comments
More like this
We can't say how long the 'verge' is. Certainly years. But is it years-years or decades-years? Quite possibly sooner than many might have guessed just a few years ago. I like to be cautious about predicting breakthroughs that have not happened yet, but the results reported a few days ago at a…
A few days ago, I told you about this year's $10,000 scholarship for student bloggers. A few days later, the voting has been vigorous (and the competition somewhat heated!), and Shelley is currently in second place. You can help her get to the top by voting for her if you have not done so already…
My wife, it would seem, pulled a fast one on me. She was released from her unit in Iraq a few days ago, but she didn't mention that to me. Instead, she just came home. Around 2:45 this afternoon, she called me from the kids school - she had just picked them up and was wondering if I could come…
A few days ago I wrote about my experience with an ice storm that hit the city I live in and my experience walking home in it. Things warmed up a little after that, but I was not expecting to wake up and find out that the temperature was 60 degrees Fahrenheit at 6:00 this morning! I wish I had to…
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.
Thanks, ewen