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.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.