ReviewImmunologic research2008
An in depth analysis of the concept of "polyspecificity" assumed to characterize TCR/BCR recognition.
Review in Immunologic research, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
19 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Heterologous immunity and antibody-dependent enhancement in respiratory virus infections.Molecular biology reports · 2025Review
- Repertoire-scale measures of antigen binding.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022Article
- A Conversation with Cohn on the Activation of CD4 T Cells.Scandinavian journal of immunology · 2015Article
- Quantum chemical calculations predict biological function: the case of T cell receptor interaction with a peptide/MHC class I.Frontiers in chemistry · 2015Article
- A stepwise model of polyreactivity of the T cell antigen-receptor (TCR): its impact on the self-nonself discrimination and on related observations (receptor editing, anergy, dual receptor cells).Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS · 2014Review
- Multiple sclerosis: molecular mechanisms and therapeutic opportunities.Antioxidants & redox signaling · 2013Review
- Autoreactivity and exceptional CDR plasticity (but not unusual polyspecificity) hinder elicitation of the anti-HIV antibody 4E10.PLoS pathogens · 2013Article
- Epitope-specificity of recombinant antibodies reveals promiscuous peptide-binding properties.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2012Article
- Ten experiments that would make a difference in understanding immune mechanisms.Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS · 2012Article
- The promise of the anti-idiotype concept.Frontiers in oncology · 2012Article
- On the logic of restrictive recognition of peptide by the T-cell antigen receptor.Immunologic research · 2011Article
- Network, degeneracy and bow tie. Integrating paradigms and architectures to grasp the complexity of the immune system.Theoretical biology & medical modelling · 2010Article
- On the critique by Colin Anderson of 'A reply to Dembic: on an end to the beginning of mis-understanding the immune response'.Scandinavian journal of immunology · 2009Article
- Why rethink the structure-function relationships regulating TCR behavior?Current trends in immunology · 2009Article
- A rationalized set of default postulates that permit a coherent description of the immune system amenable to computer modeling.Scandinavian journal of immunology · 2008Article
- A hypothesis accounting for the paradoxical expression of the D gene segment in the BCR and the TCR.European journal of immunology · 2008Article
- Epitope-specific in vivo protection against cytomegalovirus disease by CD8 T cells in the murine model of preemptive immunotherapy.Medical microbiology and immunology · 2008Article
- What does the T-cell receptor recognize when it docks on an MHC-encoded restricting element?Molecular immunology · 2008Article
- The discussion with Jacques Miller: illustrating the limitations of pure empiricism.Immunology and cell biologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
A workshop group developed the concept of a "polyspecific" TCR/BCR in the framework of today's consensus model. They argue that the individual TCR/BCR combining site is composed of a packet of specificities randomly plucked from the repertoire, hence it is "polyspecific." This essay analyzes the conclusions of the workshop and suggests an alternative. "Polyspecificity" must be dissected into its two component parts, specificity and degeneracy. The TCR and the BCR must be treated differently because the TCR recognizes allele-specifically the MHC-encoded restricting element (R) that serves as the platform presenting peptide (P). Only the anti-P paratope of the TCR behaves analogously to the BCR paratope. The two paratopes are selected to recognize a shape-determinant referred to as an epitope or ligand. The paratope is functionally unispecific in recognition, not polyspecific, with respect to shape; it is degenerate in recognition with respect to chemistry. The recognized shape-determinant can be the product of many chemically different substances, peptide, carbohydrate, lipid, steroid, nucleic acid, etc. Such a degenerate set is functionally treated by the paratope as one shape/epitope/ligand and, in no sense, can a paratope recognizing such a degenerate set be described as "polyspecific." Degeneracy and specificity are concepts that must be distinguished. The two positions are analyzed in this essay, the experiments used to support the view that the paratope of the TCR/BCR is polyspecific, are reinterpreted, and an alternative framework with its accompanying nomenclature, is presented.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.