Yes, they did. Remember how the existence of T cells, memory cells and literally the entire immune system aside from antibodies was treated like a new discovery?
Not that I have formation or experience in the field but my understanding was that only antibodies were passed from the mother to the children, not lymphocytes or immunity memory.
But now that I google it, there is a rather new body of research about the genetic and epigenetic component of immunity. Like https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27102489/ for example. What an exciting time to be alive.
I recall hearing that as well but I can't quite remember what the rest of the picture is - something about the other parts of the immune system being able to do the needed work? Or that it was shown that someone with zero antibodies could still be immune?
Wiki link says that was published in 2010, a lot has happened in the field in 13 years. That predates whole classes of immuno-theraputics like grafting B-Cell (cells that produce antibodies) receptors onto CD8+ T cells (cells that kill infected cells), which I forget the name of.
I think that this could be thought as part of a more general revolution: the know-how to program the immune system. This would include things like T-Cells therapy for cancer (1)
The amazing thing about science today is we are learning so much about our immune system in such a short time now that a novel pathogen has humbled us. So many revelations are starting to provide a clearer picture to things like Alzheimer’s, RA, fibromyalgia, MS, ME/CFS, and more.
The more interesting part? Immune cell-based treatments have really made their debut and things like monoclonal antibodies, msc, tregs, etc may just be the ticket.
You know, what would be cool is if we'd managed to make some progress on immunology and pharmacology in the past 40+ years, such that we could avoid mistakes like that.
No, I mean, the immunity achieved after fighting off infection, which includes antibodies in the blood stream for a period of time, and, as far as we can tell, long-lasting, probably permanent, T- and B-cell memory.
Yes, the article describes how certain "viruses" have learned how to beat the current immune system. That just means the immune system needs to evolve to address the new threats.
In nature, immune systems evolve based on natural selection. We need to keep trying new things and see what works. Maybe "peer review" needs to extend not only to individual papers, but to scientists and institutions themselves. Maybe their reputation needs to be evaluated over time so that a scientist who has been "infected" then has a standing presumption against their work until they can overwhelmingly demonstrate they are "healed."
This idea might be good or might be terrible, but I believe that we should be trying things like this to see if any of them stick and cause more good than harm.
I have done my PhD on T cell activation. The persistent focus of the media and even some of the science community on Antibody induced immunity was completely beyond me. T cells were largely simply ignored even though they play such a crucial role in the body’s immune response.
Antibodies seem to be a concept much easier to grasp. Maybe we should call T cells "Police Cells or "Anti-Cells" instead. You know, some marketing might help...
reply