Antibodies and human-computer analogies

Your understanding of biology is somewhat flawed. The reason why humans should only get chicken pox once is that the human body creates antibodies specifically designed to deal with that version of chicken pox. That's why the smallpox vaccine (using a deactivated version of cowpox) worked, because the antibodies created to defend against cowpox also worked against smallpox.

Using that paradigm, we should create an antibody for every single virus out there. Or, rather, there should be a "factory", similar to the lymph nodes (I think that's what does this), that would create the antibodies as each virus is encountered.

Now, the problem with HIV is that its target (every virus has one or more target(s) within the body) is the very factory that creates antibodies, which is why so very few people develop an immunity to HIV. (I've heard of two, both well-documented.)

The trick here is that there isn't one monolithic antibody in the human body. There's one for each genetic virus. (Or is it that there's one for every viral action? I dunno.) I guess the trick would be is to create an antibody that would prevent buffer-overflows, for example. Then, every virus that uses that as its entry method would be stymied. (And, no, I have no idea how that would be done, but it's a possible method.)

This would mean that each antibody would be very resource-light, because it only does one thing, and does it well. (Haven't we heard that before, somwhere?)

------
/me wants to be the brightest bulb in the chandelier!

Comment on Antibodies and human-computer analogies

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Antibodies and human-computer analogies by dondelelcaro (Monk) on Aug 04, 2001 at 00:45 UTC
Sorry, getting nitpicky here (and well off the topic, but I thought I'd clear up some common misconceptions). human body creates antibodies specifically designed The antibodies are not specifically designed. They are selected because they do not react with self proteins and happen to bind to some "acceptable" surface to activate themselves. (Usually a protein on a bacteria, possibly a viral fragment.) These antibodies are generated totally at random (well, sort of at random, I'm not going to go into exactly how they are made.) very factory that creates antibodies, which is why so very few people develop an immunity to HIV. (I've heard of two, both well-documented.) People who are immune to HIV have a T-cell mutation that causes them to be missing the CD4R (IIRC). This keeps HIV from being able to bind to the T Cells. {One of the people who guest lectures on HIV at UCR is immune to HIV. She found this out because her blood would not support viable HIV in culture. (It's hard to get fresh blood in the lab without vampiring your labies.)} There's one for each genetic virus. (Or is it that there's one for every viral action? I dunno.) There actually are thousands of antibodies for each virus (maybe millions) because the antibodies do not have a specific fit with the virus. Instead, they fit (I'll ignore the physics and chemistry necessary to understand the concept of "fit") in varying degrees of wellnes. That is, there are some antibodies that totally suck at binding, some that are decent, and some that spend almost all of their time bound to the binding site... This is main problem with adapting a analog solution to a digital problem is that when you get off by a bit in the digital world, things tend not to work at all. However, in an analog world, you can get away with an awfull lot of slop, just because things still "work" even if they aren't spot on...	[reply]
Re: Antibodies and human-computer analogies by xphase_work (Pilgrim) on Aug 03, 2001 at 22:21 UTC
I appreciate your correcting my flawed understanding, and I think that based on your new information the idea may still be valid(perhaps even more so). Thanks, --xPhase	[reply]