6 ms·

I don’t necessarily follow everything that the parent comment is covering, but I gather that he may be referring to the sheer existence of the immune system. Ho

I don’t necessarily follow everything that the parent comment is covering, but I gather that he may be referring to the sheer existence of the immune system. How can natural selection account for that?

fernandopj 4y ago
You're making the same mistake as the OP: looking in isolation at the current, final step of a process that took millions of years. Also, you're gonna find a lot of different immune systems in nature, just as you can find many different eyes/vision in animals. There's a lot of middle ground in species that saw no advantage in evolving that particular system against their environment. You're also confusing the randomness of the steps with the somewhat previsible trend of an entire ecosystem which is evolving. If world is getting warmer and air more dense, you wouldn't be able to guess which mutation occurs but you can predict in time animals would be more adapt to that new ecosystem. Darwin famously looked at a unusual orchid with a long "tube" leading to nectar, and spoke that "there must be a bird with a long beak here somewhere". He didn't find it at first, but it was discovered later [1]. So you can apply some predictions at how evolution took place if you take a look at the environment. Just as one would guess there must be an immune system in animals if you discover diseases, virus, bacteria etc - or else how would large animals exist? [1]https://laidbackgardener.blog/2017/04/12/darwins-orchid https://laidbackgardener.blog/2017/04/12/darwins-orchid
pazimzadeh 4y ago
There is no "immune system." There is an innate immune system which reacts quickly but only to general threat patterns (kind of like racial profiling, to be crude). It is really easy to explain the evolution of this system. The adaptive immune system is the one that runs a mini-evolution within your own body as way to counter the extremely rapid rate of evolution in pathogens. There are a few explanations as to how this came about - see my last comment. Paradoxically, it may be the very success of our immune system which puts selective pressure on pathogens to evolve even faster. The acquired immune system: a vantage from beneath https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15539148/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15539148/
- the-printer 4y ago
  > There is no "immune system." There is an innate immune system which reacts quickly but only to general threat patterns (kind of like racial profiling, to be crude). It is really easy to explain the evolution of this system. Could you kindly explain? From the beginning. I’m trying to gain “top-to-bottom” understanding of what we’re discussing. Also, what was the reason behind placing “immune system” in quotation marks and negating its existence per my reference of it, but delineating it in the format that you did subsequently? I’m trying to figure out where I erred in my choice of words.
  - pazimzadeh 4y ago
    I should have said there is no singular immune system. Technically, the "immune system" should include anything that prevents pathogenesis (disease). This would include behavioral things like avoiding people who look sick, and the tendency for sick people to stay indoors as a a population-level adaptation which prevents the spread of microbes. Neuro-immunology is in fact a burgeoning field and for example we now know that many macrophages in the spleen (typically though to be an immune organ) are in contact with the nervous system, though it's not clear yet what the purpose of this is. Kind of related: some kinds of voluntary meditation can affect the extent of inflammation in the body triggered by bacterial toxins (https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1322174111 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1322174111). If we limit the "immune system" to the parts of the body that directly interacts with microbes, then we still have to split it up into at least two buckets - the innate and the adaptive immune system. The innate immune system recognizes broad categories of molecular patterns which are often found on pathogens (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathogen-associated_molecular_pattern https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathogen-associated_molecular_...) or of molecules which result from tissue damage (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damage-associated_molecular_pattern https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damage-associated_molecular_pa...) and reacts very quickly to try to clear the infection/recruit repair molecules. The innate immune system then recruits the adaptive immune system which takes about 2 weeks. In jawed vertebrates, the adaptive immune system contains a humongous and diverse repertoire of cells which are randomly generated using VDJ recombination (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V(D)J_recombination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V(D)J_recombination), and if you are lucky then one of these cells in your body will recognize the pathogen and clone itself to form an army which will clear the disease. A small portion of these clones will then hang around in your body so that the next time you see a similar disease, they are already primed to respond to the infection. This is called immunological memory. The flip-side to this, which many people forget, is immunological tolerance. That means that if the foreign cell you encountered did not cause you any damage, then the next time you see it you will actually react to it even less than the first time. Technically, tolerance is also a form of immunological memory since the second response depends on the first one. Because of this tolerance, "foreignness" is often not enough to induce an immune response other than tolerance, and this is the reason that vaccines require something called an adjuvant, which tricks the immune system into thinking there is danger associated with the foreign body.(https://www.jci.org/articles/view/119978 https://www.jci.org/articles/view/119978). Tolerance is critical to keeping around the 'good bacteria' which perform useful functions all over your body such as fermenting fibers into short-chain fatty acids, and taking up niche space so that more greedy bacteria don't invade. Going back to your question: "How can natural selection account for that?" The innate immune system can be accounted for in the same way as everything else in biology - variation within populations of individuals selected for individuals which could recognize pathogens. The selective pressure was created by the pathogens themselves. The adaptive immune system is more complex, since it involves running a mini-evolution within each individuals in the population which then selects for cells which can specifically respond to the pathogen you are infected with (like brute-forcing a password). The origins of this system are debated, but I have not encountered anything which suggests that natural selection could not generate such a system. You have to keep in mind that you can often get 'jumps' in cellular functionality when pieces of viruses insert themselves in random parts of the chromosome. Viruses already have the ability to generate extreme diversity when they replicate within our bodies. So the thought is that one of our ancestors by chance had its reproductive cells infected by a virus in the exact region where an innate immune receptor existed, which gave this receptor the ability to generate new versions of itself during its lifetime. Natural selection would definitely be involved, because the virus probably inserted itself into lots of individuals in the population but in parts of the chromosome which did not lend themselves to creating this diversity in immune receptors. Hence, those individuals were selected out of the population, leaving the ones which had an ability to run this 'inner evolution' which we call the adaptive immune system. It is kind of poignant that the solution to the age old problem of infection (adaptive immune system) likely resulted from a viral infection. Conversely, the adaptive immune system now works so well that it is probably selecting for even more sophisticated microbes which trick and evade it (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15539148/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15539148/). Which is all natural selection.. Some of the links in my previous comment might be useful to you: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34405898 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34405898 Edit: oh and technically it's much more complicated than that. The mucus layers which line your intestinal epithelium also play a key role in making sure that one bacteria cannot come along and chew up all of the nutrients. This is done by constantly generating new unique glycan (sugar) structures, so that the "wall" which separates us from our intestinal microbes never looks the same on any given day or time: https://academic.oup.com/gastro/article/7/1/3/5305718 https://academic.oup.com/gastro/article/7/1/3/5305718. This would probably fall in the innate immune system bucket.
hoseja 4y ago
It's a race together with increasingly complex pathogens. First "pathogen" probably was just a complex molecule that accidentally used another molecule's energy store instead of it's own, neither of them having any sort of immune system (cellular membrane at all being a form of immune system).

fernandopj 4y ago

You're making the same mistake as the OP: looking in isolation at the current, final step of a process that took millions of years. Also, you're gonna find a lot of different immune systems in nature, just as you can find many different eyes/vision in animals. There's a lot of middle ground in species that saw no advantage in evolving that particular system against their environment. You're also confusing the randomness of the steps with the somewhat previsible trend of an entire ecosystem which is evolving. If world is getting warmer and air more dense, you wouldn't be able to guess which mutation occurs but you can predict in time animals would be more adapt to that new ecosystem. Darwin famously looked at a unusual orchid with a long "tube" leading to nectar, and spoke that "there must be a bird with a long beak here somewhere". He didn't find it at first, but it was discovered later [1]. So you can apply some predictions at how evolution took place if you take a look at the environment. Just as one would guess there must be an immune system in animals if you discover diseases, virus, bacteria etc - or else how would large animals exist? [1]https://laidbackgardener.blog/2017/04/12/darwins-orchid https://laidbackgardener.blog/2017/04/12/darwins-orchid

pazimzadeh 4y ago

There is no "immune system." There is an innate immune system which reacts quickly but only to general threat patterns (kind of like racial profiling, to be crude). It is really easy to explain the evolution of this system. The adaptive immune system is the one that runs a mini-evolution within your own body as way to counter the extremely rapid rate of evolution in pathogens. There are a few explanations as to how this came about - see my last comment. Paradoxically, it may be the very success of our immune system which puts selective pressure on pathogens to evolve even faster. The acquired immune system: a vantage from beneath https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15539148/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15539148/

the-printer 4y ago
> There is no "immune system." There is an innate immune system which reacts quickly but only to general threat patterns (kind of like racial profiling, to be crude). It is really easy to explain the evolution of this system. Could you kindly explain? From the beginning. I’m trying to gain “top-to-bottom” understanding of what we’re discussing. Also, what was the reason behind placing “immune system” in quotation marks and negating its existence per my reference of it, but delineating it in the format that you did subsequently? I’m trying to figure out where I erred in my choice of words.
- pazimzadeh 4y ago
  I should have said there is no singular immune system. Technically, the "immune system" should include anything that prevents pathogenesis (disease). This would include behavioral things like avoiding people who look sick, and the tendency for sick people to stay indoors as a a population-level adaptation which prevents the spread of microbes. Neuro-immunology is in fact a burgeoning field and for example we now know that many macrophages in the spleen (typically though to be an immune organ) are in contact with the nervous system, though it's not clear yet what the purpose of this is. Kind of related: some kinds of voluntary meditation can affect the extent of inflammation in the body triggered by bacterial toxins (https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1322174111 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1322174111). If we limit the "immune system" to the parts of the body that directly interacts with microbes, then we still have to split it up into at least two buckets - the innate and the adaptive immune system. The innate immune system recognizes broad categories of molecular patterns which are often found on pathogens (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathogen-associated_molecular_pattern https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathogen-associated_molecular_...) or of molecules which result from tissue damage (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damage-associated_molecular_pattern https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damage-associated_molecular_pa...) and reacts very quickly to try to clear the infection/recruit repair molecules. The innate immune system then recruits the adaptive immune system which takes about 2 weeks. In jawed vertebrates, the adaptive immune system contains a humongous and diverse repertoire of cells which are randomly generated using VDJ recombination (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V(D)J_recombination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V(D)J_recombination), and if you are lucky then one of these cells in your body will recognize the pathogen and clone itself to form an army which will clear the disease. A small portion of these clones will then hang around in your body so that the next time you see a similar disease, they are already primed to respond to the infection. This is called immunological memory. The flip-side to this, which many people forget, is immunological tolerance. That means that if the foreign cell you encountered did not cause you any damage, then the next time you see it you will actually react to it even less than the first time. Technically, tolerance is also a form of immunological memory since the second response depends on the first one. Because of this tolerance, "foreignness" is often not enough to induce an immune response other than tolerance, and this is the reason that vaccines require something called an adjuvant, which tricks the immune system into thinking there is danger associated with the foreign body.(https://www.jci.org/articles/view/119978 https://www.jci.org/articles/view/119978). Tolerance is critical to keeping around the 'good bacteria' which perform useful functions all over your body such as fermenting fibers into short-chain fatty acids, and taking up niche space so that more greedy bacteria don't invade. Going back to your question: "How can natural selection account for that?" The innate immune system can be accounted for in the same way as everything else in biology - variation within populations of individuals selected for individuals which could recognize pathogens. The selective pressure was created by the pathogens themselves. The adaptive immune system is more complex, since it involves running a mini-evolution within each individuals in the population which then selects for cells which can specifically respond to the pathogen you are infected with (like brute-forcing a password). The origins of this system are debated, but I have not encountered anything which suggests that natural selection could not generate such a system. You have to keep in mind that you can often get 'jumps' in cellular functionality when pieces of viruses insert themselves in random parts of the chromosome. Viruses already have the ability to generate extreme diversity when they replicate within our bodies. So the thought is that one of our ancestors by chance had its reproductive cells infected by a virus in the exact region where an innate immune receptor existed, which gave this receptor the ability to generate new versions of itself during its lifetime. Natural selection would definitely be involved, because the virus probably inserted itself into lots of individuals in the population but in parts of the chromosome which did not lend themselves to creating this diversity in immune receptors. Hence, those individuals were selected out of the population, leaving the ones which had an ability to run this 'inner evolution' which we call the adaptive immune system. It is kind of poignant that the solution to the age old problem of infection (adaptive immune system) likely resulted from a viral infection. Conversely, the adaptive immune system now works so well that it is probably selecting for even more sophisticated microbes which trick and evade it (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15539148/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15539148/). Which is all natural selection.. Some of the links in my previous comment might be useful to you: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34405898 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34405898 Edit: oh and technically it's much more complicated than that. The mucus layers which line your intestinal epithelium also play a key role in making sure that one bacteria cannot come along and chew up all of the nutrients. This is done by constantly generating new unique glycan (sugar) structures, so that the "wall" which separates us from our intestinal microbes never looks the same on any given day or time: https://academic.oup.com/gastro/article/7/1/3/5305718 https://academic.oup.com/gastro/article/7/1/3/5305718. This would probably fall in the innate immune system bucket.

hoseja 4y ago

It's a race together with increasingly complex pathogens. First "pathogen" probably was just a complex molecule that accidentally used another molecule's energy store instead of it's own, neither of them having any sort of immune system (cellular membrane at all being a form of immune system).