Coinhibition: A self Q&A

Abstract

AbstractThere are two approaches to scientific investigation, the common approach (proving one’s theory) and Popper’s approach (falsification of one’s theories). Popper’s approach has advantages as well as dangers (being perceived as not sure of one’s theories, or even be hostile to them—an ‘auto‐traitor’). Nevertheless, the Popper approach can bridge the gap between inhibition (directly observable) and inhibitory regulation (not directly observable). Suppression of immune responses by antigen‐specific antibody has led to theories regarding immunoregulation by immune products. There are many immune products capable of regulating immune responses. The inhibitory outcomes of this regulation have been called coinhibition and immune checkpoint inhibition. Coinhibition should be used when regulation begins at the cell surface or in the cell cytoplasm, which opens up the possibility of antigen‐specific regulation. Immune checkpoint inhibition should be used when the initiating inhibitory event occurs in the nucleus, such as by directly affecting the cell cycle, where the concept of antigen‐specific regulation is more difficult to invoke. These forms of immunoregulation could be corrupted by viral infections, such as in COVID‐19 infections.