CD8 T cell ignorance or tolerance to islet antigens depends on antigen dose

There are two major mechanisms reported to prevent the autoreactivity of islet-specific CD8+ T cells: ignorance and tolerance. When ignorance is operative, naïve autoreactive CD8+ T cells ignore islet antigens and recirculate without causing damage, unless activated by an external stimulus. In the case of tolerance, CD8+ T cells are deleted. Which factor(s) contributes to each particular outcome was previously unknown. Here, we demonstrate that the concentration of self antigen determines which mechanism operates. When ovalbumin (OVA) was expressed at a relatively low concentration in the pancreatic islets of transgenic mice, there was no detectable cross-presentation, and the CD8+ T cell compartment remained ignorant of OVA. In mice expressing higher doses of OVA, cross-presentation was detectable and led to peripheral deletion of OVA-specific CD8+ T cells. When cross-presentation was prevented by reconstituting the bone marrow compartment with cells incapable of presenting OVA, deletional tolerance was converted to ignorance. Thus, the immune system uses two strategies to avoid CD8+ T cell-mediated autoimmunity: for high dose antigens, it deletes autoreactive T cells, whereas for lower dose antigens, it relies on ignorance.

Immune surveillance against a solid tumor fails because of immunological ignorance

Many peripheral solid tumors such as sarcomas and carcinomas express tumor-specific antigens that can serve as targets for immune effector T cells. Nevertheless, overall immune surveillance against such tumors seems relatively inefficient. We studied immune surveillance against a s.c. sarcoma expressing a characterized viral tumor antigen. Surprisingly, the tumor cells were capable of inducing a protective cytotoxic T cell response if transferred as a single-cell suspension. However, if they were transplanted as small tumor pieces, tumors readily grew. Tumor growth correlated strictly with (i) failure of tumor cells to reach the draining lymph nodes and (ii) absence of primed cytotoxic T cells. Cytotoxic T cells were not tolerant or deleted because a tumor antigen-specific cytotoxic T cell response was readily induced in lymphoid tissue by immunization with virus or with tumor cells even in the presence of large tumors. Established tumors were rejected by vaccine-induced effector T cells if effector T cells were maintained by prolonged or repetitive vaccination, but not by single-dose vaccination. Thus, in addition to several other tumor-promoting parameters, some antigenic peripheral sarcomas—and probably carcinomas—may grow not because they anergize or tolerize tumor-specific T cells, but because such tumors are immunologically dealt with as if they were in a so-called immunologically privileged site and are ignored for too long.

The biotic crisis and the future of evolution

The biotic crisis overtaking our planet is likely to precipitate a major extinction of species. That much is well known. Not so well known but probably more significant in the long term is that the crisis will surely disrupt and deplete certain basic processes of evolution, with consequences likely to persist for millions of years. Distinctive features of future evolution could include a homogenization of biotas, a proliferation of opportunistic species, a pest-and-weed ecology, an outburst of speciation among taxa that prosper in human-dominated ecosystems, a decline of biodisparity, an end to the speciation of large vertebrates, the depletion of “evolutionary powerhouses” in the tropics, and unpredictable emergent novelties. Despite this likelihood, we have only a rudimentary understanding of how we are altering the evolutionary future. As a result of our ignorance, conservation policies fail to reflect long-term evolutionary aspects of biodiversity loss.

Human-modified ecosystems and future evolution

Our global impact is finally receiving the scientific attention it deserves. The outcome will largely determine the future course of evolution. Human-modified ecosystems are shaped by our activities and their side effects. They share a common set of traits including simplified food webs, landscape homogenization, and high nutrient and energy inputs. Ecosystem simplification is the ecological hallmark of humanity and the reason for our evolutionary success. However, the side effects of our profligacy and poor resource practices are now so pervasive as to threaten our future no less than that of biological diversity itself. This article looks at human impact on ecosystems and the consequences for evolution. It concludes that future evolution will be shaped by our awareness of the global threats, our willingness to take action, and our ability to do so. Our ability is presently hampered by several factors, including the poor state of ecosystem and planetary knowledge, ignorance of human impact, lack of guidelines for sustainability, and a paucity of good policies, practices, and incentives for adopting those guidelines in daily life. Conservation philosophy, science, and practice must be framed against the reality of human-dominated ecosystems, rather than the separation of humanity and nature underlying the modern conservation movement. The steps scientists can take to imbed science in conservation and conservation in the societal process affecting the future of ecosystems and human well-being are discussed.

Signals and signs in the nervous system: The dynamic anatomy of electrical activity is probably information-rich

The dichotomy between two groups of workers on neuroelectrical activity is retarding progress. To study the interrelations between neuronal unit spike activity and compound field potentials of cell populations is both unfashionable and technically challenging. Neither of the mutual disparagements is justified: that spikes are to higher functions as the alphabet is to Shakespeare and that slow field potentials are irrelevant epiphenomena. Spikes are not the basis of the neural code but of multiple codes that coexist with nonspike codes. Field potentials are mainly information-rich signs of underlying processes, but sometimes they are also signals for neighboring cells, that is, they exert influence. This paper concerns opportunities for new research with many channels of wide-band (spike and slow wave) recording. A wealth of structure in time and three-dimensional space is different at each scale—micro-, meso-, and macroactivity. The depth of our ignorance is emphasized to underline the opportunities for uncovering new principles. We cannot currently estimate the relative importance of spikes and synaptic communication vs. extrasynaptic graded signals. In spite of a preponderance of literature on the former, we must consider the latter as probably important. We are in a primitive stage of looking at the time series of wide-band voltages in the compound, local field, potentials and of choosing descriptors that discriminate appropriately among brain loci, states (functions), stages (ontogeny, senescence), and taxa (evolution). This is not surprising, since the brains in higher species are surely the most complex systems known. They must be the greatest reservoir of new discoveries in nature. The complexity should not deter us, but a dose of humility can stimulate the flow of imaginative juices.