Therefore, given

the Alarm Model, rejection would be expected in both situations. As this is not the case, the immune system of the F1 must have learned by a somatic process that its host expresses P1 and P2 epitopes and, therefore, must become tolerant of (unresponsive to) them, whereas the immune system of P1 is not tolerant of (is responsive to) P2 epitopes and vice versa because tolerance is epitope-specific. An adaptive immune system that Quizartinib ic50 ignored the need to sort the repertoire as part of Decision 1 would lead to generalized autoimmunity because ‘perturbation’ cannot distinguish induction to responsiveness of anti-S from that of anti-NS cells. The activating Signal 2 must be NS-antigen-specific and, under the ARA Model, is delivered normally by eTh anti-NS that have undergone the sorting process. It is the presence or absence of Signal 2, not of costimulation, that distinguishes activation from inactivation. To argue that healthy tissues

induce tolerance whereas perturbed tissues induce responsiveness only begs the question as to how the epitopes of healthy and perturbed tissues are distinguished (i.e. how is epitope-specific tolerance established and maintained). I-BET-762 price This is what the ARA Model attempts to do. Decision 1 is more meaningfully described as the sorting of the random repertoire. It is the resultant sorted repertoire, anti-NS, that normally faces the question of ‘whether to respond or not’ and with which effector ecosystem (i.e. Decision 2). Decision 2 is essentially a problem of the requirements for differentiation from a naïve/resting/initial state iT/B-cell anti-NS to an appropriate effector, eT/B anti-NS. Here, ‘perturbation’

is relevant. An Alarm Model for Decision 1 is irrelevant because the recognitive elements for alarm signals are germline-selected and antigen-unspecific. Decision 1 requires an individual-specific learning process that tells the immune system what is a host target (self) and that then uses this information to purge anti-self Ureohydrolase from the somatically generated random adaptive repertoire. By contrast, because the pathways used for Decision 2, the regulation of class, are germline-selected, the Alarm Model is clearly germane. The unique postulate of the Alarm Model is that the effector ecosystem induced ‘is tailored to the tissue……rather than to the invading pathogen’. This assumption is one of several possible alternatives under the Trauma Model that, as discussed above, can be tested by the proposed Experiment 2. Matzinger and Kamala give us a comprehensive model for tissue-based class control. It represents a heroic attempt to catalogue a vast number of observations into a form that can be put on an artist’s canvas (Figure 1 in ref. [30]).