Taping the Immune System's Secrets

[Guest guest]

they have no clue..........

http://stanmed.stanford.edu/2011summer/article7.html

" “That’s an awful lot of moving parts. And we don’t really know

what the vast majority of them do, or should be doing,” says , the

Bert and n Avery Family Professor in the Department of Microbiology

and Immunology. “We can’t even be sure how to tell when the immune

system’s not working right, let alone why not, because we don’t

have good metrics of what a healthy human immune system looks like.”

Despite billions spent on immune stimulants in supermarkets and

drugstores last year, we don’t know what ­ if anything ­ those really do,

or what “immune stimulant” even means. "

THE BODYGUARD

Taping the Immune System's Secrets

So, how’s your immune system doing? It’s not a question you’ve

likely heard before. Give it about five years, though, and that will all

change, if a forward-looking pack of Stanford immunologists have their

way.

These scientists are out to generate a simple battery of tests, performed

on blood obtained from a single needle-stick in a doctor’s office, to let

you know what shape your immune system is in. Not just whether it’s

acting up, or idling too slow, but specifics you and your doctor could

use to guide your next medical move. You’ve got the sniffles: Is it an

allergy, or an infection? You’re getting older: Do you need a bigger dose

of the annual flu shot, or is the standard one going to work just fine?

You feel great: Are you cruising asymptomatically toward an autoimmune

disease that will flare up five years hence, and if so, how can you

prevent it?

For now, from the standpoint of the practicing clinician the immune

system remains a black box, says Garry Fathman, MD, a professor of

immunology and rheumatology and associate director of the Institute for

Immunology, Transplantation and Infection.

“If a patient were to ask me, ‘How’s my immune system doing today?’ I

would have no idea how to answer that, and I’m an immunologist.

None of us can answer that. Right now we’re still doing the same

tests I did when I was a medical student in the late 1960s,” he says.

“What we need is a scorecard: a routine, standardized, easily interpreted

blood test you take before you get sick ­ analogous to the ones

you get for cholesterol or glucose levels,” says Mark , PhD, the

director of the institute. “This would let you and your doctor know how

well your immune system is functioning in general ­ and, if it’s

malfunctioning, how, and with what consequences.”

Sounds reasonable. We’ve got blood tests for cholesterol, blood tests for

liver function, blood tests for pregnancy. So, why not blood tests for

the state of our blood ­ or more precisely, the state of that

all-important blood- and lymph-borne network of circulating sentinels,

soldiers and signals that compose our immune system?

Alas, that’s easier said than done. In the last few decades a huge amount

has been learned about the basic mechanisms of immune response ­ a

super-smart system of sensors, cells and secretions that has evolved to

guard us from invasion by pathogens or betrayal by our own tumor-prone

tissues. It’s staggeringly complex, comprising at least 15 different

interacting cell types that spew dozens of different molecules into the

blood to communicate with one another and to do battle. Within each of

those cells sit tens of thousands of genes whose activity can be altered

by age, exercise, infection, vaccination status, diet, stress, you name

it.

“That’s an awful lot of moving parts. And we don’t really know what the

vast majority of them do, or should be doing,” says , the Bert and

n Avery Family Professor in the Department of Microbiology and

Immunology. “We can’t even be sure how to tell when the immune system’s

not working right, let alone why not, because we don’t have good

metrics of what a healthy human immune system looks like.” Despite

billions spent on immune stimulants in supermarkets and drugstores last

year, we don’t know what ­ if anything ­ those really do, or what “immune

stimulant” even means.

So , Fathman and a cohort of their fellow Stanford scientists have

launched a far-reaching effort to create the first-ever program capable

of characterizing the human immune system under normal conditions ­ and

thus identifying the multitude of minute changes it undergoes when we get

sick, or successfully vaccinated, or old. To fund the endeavor, has

received over $40 million in public and private funding, and Fathman, $3

million.

Pulling off such an ambitious undertaking requires a shift in the way

immunological research is conducted. In classical laboratory science, a

researcher asks a question, then selects a simplified “model system”

(such as a lab mouse) to help track down the answer. The researcher keeps

everything as close to the same as possible, messing with only a single

variable to see what happens when it’s tweaked. What happens isn’t always

so good for the mouse. Maybe not such a great idea to try these tweaks on

people. Besides, huge environmental and species differences render the

mouse results less than perfectly applicable to us.

But , Fathman and their colleagues think there’s a way around that.

The marriage between new or improved analytic instrumentation (much of it

pioneered at Stanford) and the latest computing technology, they believe,

will let them find needles in a haystack.

“Suppose you’ve got a very complicated system, with a lot of moving

parts,” says. “You don’t know how those parts talk to one another.

You don’t even know where to start. So instead, you keep your eye on the

whole thing, and you watch what happens to the parts when you hit it with

a hammer. Some of the parts move together. Some move one after another.

Then, you hit it with something else ­ a bucket of ice water, maybe ­ and

see what moves this time, and when, and how much.

“We can perturb the immune system all kinds of different ways, measure

the levels of hundreds or thousands of different things in response to

that, and figure out which ones go up or down with different states of

health or non-health,” says. “Anything that might affect the system

­ a vaccine, a disease, a drug ­ can tell you something.”

To get answers, Stanford has created the Human Immune Monitoring Center,

consisting of a couple of clusters of world-class instruments and

expertise. The HIMC operates according to a principle only

half-jokingly refers to as “ignorance-driven research.” The more formal

name is systems biology, an information-technology-rich approach to

unraveling complex systems of intensely interacting components.

With systems biology, you don’t have to know what you’re looking for

until you find it ­ some extremely high or low level of something (a cell

count, a secreted immune protein, expression of a gene) that turns out to

correlate with a disease or a vulnerability to it. You call that a

“biomarker.” In a human blood sample, there’s an embarrassment of

potential biomarkers to pick from, and the HIMC is bringing new

sophistication to the task.

The idea is to make that huge haystack, human blood, smaller by fishing

out a few, or a few dozen, biomarkers that by themselves may not be so

great but that, taken together, correlate with various states of health,

disease, vulnerability and resistance, or are highly predictive of immune

response to particular challenges. With standardized assays, improved

methods and increasing efficiency, these markers could someday be

measured simultaneously via a simple blood test a patient can get in a

clinical lab or doctor’s office.

In the past decade, scientists have steadily advanced the technologies

capable of pinpointing such biomarkers of immune status. These

technologies can capture the tens of thousands of changes that might be

induced by a vaccine, a disease or aging. The changes might be in immune

cells’ activity or numbers, in the amounts and types of molecules they

secrete, or in which of their genes are idling or running in overdrive.

Among the new techniques the HIMC employs:

Tetramer profiling: This technique, pioneered by , detects

attractions between members of a class of immune cells and the foreign or

altered biochemical entities they target. For instance, it can measure

the presence, or changes in the number, of specialized immune cells

targeting a particular entity such as a viral or bacterial component ­

changes that could signal a state of immune readiness or sluggishness.

“We can’t even be sure how to tell when the immune system’s not

working right, let alone why not, because we don’t have good metrics

of what a healthy immune system looks like.”

Mass-spectrometery of single cells: This was developed in large

part in the lab of Garry Nolan, PhD, professor of microbiology and

immunology. It involves an instrument ­ one of five in the world ­ that

busts a single cell’s contents into tiny pieces and, effectively, flings

them at a wall; different metal tags attached to as many as 30 or more

chosen proteins enable researchers to track levels of those proteins in

individual blood cells. Knowing in such sensitive detail how individual

cells’ protein contents are altered by challenges with drugs or disease

may allow the detection of important events, such as the onset of illness

or response to therapy, well before they become obvious.

Luminex panel: This method uses beads carrying fluorescent barcodes

to quickly determine, for almost 100 different blood samples at a crack,

which and how much of 51 different important immune-signaling molecules

called cytokines reside in each sample. Viral infection, bacterial

infection, cancer, immune deficiency, age and traumatic injury, to name a

few “perturbations” life visits on us, all result in different “cytokine

signatures”: characteristic patterns of these molecules’ presence and

activity in our blood. These signatures could be used to quickly map a

person’s immune health.

If you’re collecting about 40,000 data points per blood sample, from

hundreds of patients per year, you’re going to pile up a staggering

amount of raw data. So, taking the systems-biology tack, you hand the

entire database to the computer guys and let them sift through it, asking

questions like: What’s different between samples from, say, older versus

younger people or people whose flu shots worked versus those who got sick

anyway? Which differences appear to be medically important? Which are the

most reproducible? Which could be used in a diagnostic test?

Having started life in 2005 as a bootstrap operation, the HIMC now

employs 12 people and works on dozens of projects. Director Holden

Maecker, PhD, regularly meets with investigators to help them plan

studies, determine their needs (what samples to take, how to bank those

samples and which assays to use) and interpret their data. “For them,

it’s like going to the best restaurant,” Maecker says. “Everything’s on

the menu.”

The center’s resources are good for much more than simply characterizing

the immune system under normal conditions. Researchers and clinicians

from more than a dozen departments and divisions within the medical

center have teamed up with the HIMC to study everything from anesthesia’s

impact on wound healing, to opioids’ effects on immune function, to

potential biomarkers of depression. The search is on for immune

biomarkers of aging, Alzheimer’s, autoimmune disease, cancer, chronic

pain, rejection in organ transplantation and viral infection ­ both acute

(influenza) and chronic (HIV).

Investigators from around the world send samples to be assayed for their

own experiments. In fact, the center is one of the medical school’s

biggest money-makers, with a good half of its $1.2 million annual budget

last year generated internally as a service center for both internal and

external laboratories.

University of Washington immunology professor Jerry Nepom, MD, PhD, is

providing the HIMC with samples in the hope of identifying biomarkers of

immune status. “We don’t have any standard, clinically validated test to

do that,” says Nepon, past president of the Federation of Clinical

Immunology Societies, a 40,000-member organization of clinical

immunologists Fathman founded almost a decade ago. “What they’re doing at

Stanford is unique ­ developing the tools that will get us there.”

Regardless of its origin or fate, every blood sample ­ and the data that

comes from testing it ­ becomes part of the center’s database. That

growing pool of data, combined with clinical comparisons of patient’s

health status (diseased versus healthy, old versus young, male versus

female), promises to reveal solutions to medical riddles that for obvious

reasons can’t be solved by subjecting humans to the kind of

experimentation that immunologists have been using on mice.

The mice themselves may have already told us much of what they can about

the human immune system, says. While he’s quick to acknowledge the

value of mouse studies in puzzling out details of the immune system’s

interactions, he thinks we’re bumping up against an evolutionary limit.

Having diverged from a common ancestor 60 million years ago, mice and

people are ­ how to say this gently? ­ different. They’ve got four

legs, we’ve got two. Their hearts beat 500 times a minute, ours 60. And

their immune systems are different, too.

“We’ve cured cancer and autoimmune disease in mice many times over,”

muses . He says a colleague of his often starts his talks with the

salutation: “For the mice in the audience, I have wonderful news!”

Your immune system is there to save your life. Will Stanford’s new

systems-biology approach speed the day when this 24/7 lifeguard’s signals

are accurately interpreted in real time, on a patient-by-patient basis,

in a clinician’s office? That would be wonderful news for the rest of us.

Sheri Nakken, former R.N., MA, Hahnemannian

Homeopath

Vaccination Information & Choice Network, Washington State, USA

Vaccines -

http://vaccinationdangers.wordpress.com/ Homeopathy

http://homeopathycures.wordpress.com

Vaccine Dangers, Childhood Disease Classes & Homeopathy

Online/email courses - next classes start April 5