Most biologists belive that the immune system's defense against infections largely rests on its ability to distinguish self molecules from nonself molecules.

Most biologists belive that the immune system's defense against infections largely rests on its ability to distinguish self molecules from nonself molecules.  This concept seems central to our understanding of immune function.  Several immunologists developed an alternative hypothesis: that the immune system's effectiveness rests mostly on its ability to recognize damage to body tissues caused by the invaders, not on the ability to recognize nonself.  If you were going to test the "damage" hypothesis, what might you look for? Which type of cell would you expect to be directly affected by damaged tissues? Why? Some proponents argue that the damage hypothesis makes more sense from an evolutionary perspective, claiming that it is more advantageous for an organism's defense system to respond to tissue damage thsn to the mere presence of a foriegn microbe.  Do you agree? why/why not?

Attached file(s):

immune sys.docx  View File