the Tb bacteria doesnt secrete anything and doesnot even cause damage to cells on its own , it is the stupid immune system who has gone crazy for not being able to kill the bacteria and all of that due to the expression of bacteria antigen on macrophage surface , but what if we interpreted this cycle by blocking either antigen representation or the integration between MHC II and the T-helper cell wont that prevent the whole disease ??,(wont kill the bacteria ) but will prevent the whole disease .
The immune system is able to cope with the TB bug, at least in the vast majority of cases. Nine out of ten people infected with Mycobacterium tuberculosis control the infection at an early stage. Indeed, the price is a beginning granuloma. That granuloma is the results of the immune response, which encapsulates infected host cells, preventing them from further spreading through the body. Since M. tuberculosis lives within macrophages, the immune system needs to attack these cells (not attacking them would mirror tolerance, which would allow the bug to spread anywhere in the body!). Subsequently, a steady state status may be reached, with M. tuberculosis still alive inside granulomas but not being able to further spread through the body. In fact, the immune response is balanced in order not to cause too much damage (that would be active TB) but controlling the bug. That is, why we see reactivation of the disease in aged people or patients who acquire immune deficiency disease like AIDS. The correct question should be why in the remaining 10 % of patients the infection is not being cleared by the initial immune response. The explanation is that in these patients the immune system is not strong enough (i.e. the patients are somehow immunocompromised) to fight the bug within the host cells. In addition, some genetic factors may contribute to the inability to fight M. tuberculosis effectively. Off topic: I don't agree that the immune system is stupid ...
the thought is correct, it is the immune system which is responsible for health or disease, self protection or self damage,
abosultely right in sayying it is the immune system which is not capable enought to eliminate the bacteria due to defective or altered macrphoges or the killer cells which do not deliver the killer punch or the defence line which proved weak to allow hundreds and thousands of bacteria to lunch and dine on our own body.
The immune system is able to cope with the TB bug, at least in the vast majority of cases. Nine out of ten people infected with Mycobacterium tuberculosis control the infection at an early stage. Indeed, the price is a beginning granuloma. That granuloma is the results of the immune response, which encapsulates infected host cells, preventing them from further spreading through the body. Since M. tuberculosis lives within macrophages, the immune system needs to attack these cells (not attacking them would mirror tolerance, which would allow the bug to spread anywhere in the body!). Subsequently, a steady state status may be reached, with M. tuberculosis still alive inside granulomas but not being able to further spread through the body. In fact, the immune response is balanced in order not to cause too much damage (that would be active TB) but controlling the bug. That is, why we see reactivation of the disease in aged people or patients who acquire immune deficiency disease like AIDS. The correct question should be why in the remaining 10 % of patients the infection is not being cleared by the initial immune response. The explanation is that in these patients the immune system is not strong enough (i.e. the patients are somehow immunocompromised) to fight the bug within the host cells. In addition, some genetic factors may contribute to the inability to fight M. tuberculosis effectively. Off topic: I don't agree that the immune system is stupid ...
I have just been googling Modigliani after noting that he died of TB whilst still young, as I suspected he had syphilis. Evidence so far points in that direction. John Keats had a strong family history of TB, yet did not die of this until a young adult, after he likely caught syphilis. Other famous persons where syphilis may have been a trigger were Ivor Gurney and King Edward VI (congenital syphilis?).
Do we know why syphilis unlocks latent TB in adults? The simplest explanation would be that the syphilis directly attacks macrophages or granulomas, releasing the Mt inside.
Ok lets imagine that we could block the interaction between t.helper cell and macrophage containing Tb, would the patient still have the disease?(will the disease progress)?
Mycobacterium tuberculosis has a highly branched fatty acid ie Mycolic acid, in its cell wall, which makes it resistant to all adverse conditions. In India, we are continuously exposed to it and yet we are immune towards it only because of our strong immunity. There lies the answer!
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Microbiology
- Microorganisms
- Bacteria