A Plausible Framework Reveals Potential Similarities in the Regulation of Immunity against Some Cancers and Some Infectious Agents: Implications for Prevention and Treatment.

Abstract

Different frameworks, which are currently employed to understand how immune responses are regulated, can account for different observations reported in the classical literature. I have argued that the predominant frameworks, employed over the last two/three decades to analyze the circumstances that determine whether an immune response is generated or this potential is ablated, and that determine the class of immunity an antigen induces, are inconsistent with diverse classical observations. These observations are "paradoxical" within the context of these frameworks and, consequently, tend to be ignored by most contemporary researchers. One such observation is that low and high doses of diverse types of antigen result, respectively, in cell-mediated and IgG antibody responses. I suggest these paradoxes render these frameworks implausible. An alternative framework, The Threshold Hypothesis, accounts for the paradoxical observations. Some frameworks are judged more plausible when found to be valuable in understanding findings in fields beyond their original compass. I explore here how the Threshold Hypothesis, initially based on studies with chemically well-defined and "simple antigens", most often a purified protein, can nevertheless shed light on diverse classical and more recent observations in the fields of immunity against cancer and against infectious agents, thus revealing common, immune mechanisms. Most cancers and some pathogens are best contained by cell-mediated immunity. The success of the Threshold Hypothesis has encouraged me to employ it as a basis for proposing strategies to prevent and to treat cancer and those infectious diseases caused by pathogens best contained by a cell-mediated attack.