|WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Medicine||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
- 1 YO! Way To techy
- 2 Too technical
- 3 Should the header Freefloating Antibodies be Freefloating Antigens?
- 4 Antigen Correction of DEFINITION
- 5 Antigen vs. Immunogen
- 6 Removed text
- 7 "Origin of poopy", vandalization, right?
- 8 This page contains false information
- 9 Chemical Composition
- 10 practical examples
- 11 Article title
- 12 Definitional issue
- 13 Suggest removing "Split", "Citations" and "Original research" tags from article
- 14 Making this page accessible to most readers
YO! Way To techy
Should the header Freefloating Antibodies be Freefloating Antigens?
This paragraph doesn't match what I'm reading in other articles. Is this paragraph implying that polyclonal antibodies cannot attack free floating antigens?
- I think you'd be dead very soon and very quick if you only had monoclonal antibodies in your bloodstream. (By their nature monoclonal systems are an artificial construct for research/therapy - did that make sense?) Changing that right now, will come back and do a whole overhaul--ZZ 14:59, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Should this article be reworked? The wording is a bit odd and mostly not correct (although it is very easy to read, especially for the non-scientist). User:Stmoran, 14 May 2005
- Of course it should be. That's the point of the process. If you revise it in a way we don't like, it is always possible to change or revert it. Also remember to sign yourself using four tildes ~~~~ --Eleassar777 11:17, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Antigen Correction of DEFINITION
An antigen is ANY BODY that stimulates antibody prouction, from the immune system against it. Source: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002224.htm --Chazz88 22:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Antigen vs. Immunogen
In my immunology course I was given slightly different definitions for antigen and immunogen. According to what I learned, antigens are substances that can bind to components of the immune system, but not necessarily cause an actual immune response. An immunogen, however, was defined as a substance that can cause an acquired immune response. The definition for antigen given in this article is different. Any thoughts? -Campaigner444 00:46, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- I agree, an immunogen is not the same thing as an antigen XApple (talk) 16:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- I agree as well. An immunogen is a type of antigen, but not all antigens are immunogens. As you have said, immunogens elicit a response from the immune system, but antigens do not always cause a reaction. There should be some differentiation.--Mcoj87 (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
It is widely recognized by medical professionals that menstrual fluid contains a bacteria associated with Daujeszky's Disease, a antigen in men that has gone unrecognized for many years. Known side effects include stomach cramps, nausea, diarrhea, and severe inflammation of the urethra. If not treated properly it could result in urinary infection lasting for up to several days.
A finding of Dr. Joan Hiniesne, a professor at Cambridge University, suggests that Daujeszky’s Disease occurs primarily in young sexual active men. A case study in Austin, Texas followed a man, “Dave” (hiding actual name under privacy clause), for several months after having intercourse during the menstrual cycle of a female participant. The study concluded that symptoms often arise fairly suddenly and last for any number of days; perhaps even weeks depending on severity. “This is a very common effect of intercourse during the menstrual cycle” Reported by Casey Snyder of the Washington Medical Journal in an article entitled: Presumptions of Safety during Sex.
removal --ZayZayEM 01:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
"Origin of poopy", vandalization, right?
This page contains false information
The basic definition given on this page (i.e. antigen = immunogen) is wrong. There needs to be two separate articles. One is a sub-class of the other.
Immunogens refer to antigens that are able to stimulate a specific adaptive immune response when introduced into the body. Not all antigens are immunogens. To be immunogenic, antigens must fulfil certain criteria, such as i/ being large enough, ii/ chemically complex and iii/ in most of the cases foreign.
Why is the article entitled "Antibody generator"? "Antigen" is far more commonly used in the UK. Also, the text of the article uses the term "antigen", not "antibody generator". Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Agree that "antibody generator" is not a widely used term (although it does make the "antigen" concept explicit). After reading the discussions and the article, I think the title should be "immunogen" and that "antigen" should be a subheading within the article. Immunology is complicated with several overlapping concepts, but to the best of my understanding this is the correct heirarchy Johnfravolda (talk) 14:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I removed my previous comments on the relationship between the concepts of "immunogen" and "antigen" since my case contradicts the authority of accepted text books on the subject.
In reviewing "Kuby Immunology" I read:
"Antigens are defined specifically as molecules that interact with the immunoglobulin receptor of B-cells (or with the T-cell receptor when complexed with MHC)."
This is clearly a bit different from the concept of "antibody generator" from which the term antigen derives (see Antigen#Origin_of_the_term_antigen).
Also, even the Kuby definitions has its caveats, since "molecules that interact with the immunoglobulin receptor" would include molecules that can attach to antibodies (immunoglobulins) in their own right. For example, a molecule like protein A "attacks" antibodies by binding to invariable regions of immunoglobulin molecules without acting as an antigen. Of course, protein A can also act as an immunogenic-antigen since it is a "non-self" molecule that would induce the production of anti-protein A antibodies.
So it seems that it is not easy to arrive at a precise, logical and historically consistent definition of "antigen".
Any thoughts on current state of the article?
Making this page accessible to most readers
Here is the current lead paragraph of the article:
- An antigen (from antibody generator) originally defined as any molecule that binds specifically to an antibody, the term now also refers to any molecule or molecular fragment that can be bound by a major histocompatibility complex (MHC) and presented to a T-cell receptor. "Self" antigens are usually tolerated by the immune system; whereas "Non-self" antigens are identified as intruders and attacked by the immune system. Autoimmune disorders arise from the immune system reacting to its own antigens.
And here is the definition from the MedlinePlus website of the National Institutes of Health:
- "An antigen is any substance that causes your immune system to produce antibodies against it. An antigen may be a foreign substance from the environment such as chemicals, bacteria, viruses, or pollen. An antigen may also be formed within the body, as with bacterial toxins or tissue cells."
Now which one do you think most readers would understand?
ANON READER Someone please fix this article. It is amateur at best and half the definitions are incorrect. An antigen isn't defined by presence of a foreign macromolecule alone, it also includes self. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 16:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)