Memory but no suppression in low-dimensional symmetric idiotypic networks

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
We present a new symmetric model of the idiotypic immune network. The model specifies clones of B-lymphocytes and incorporates: (1) influx and decay of cells; (2) symmetric stimulatory and inhibitory idiotypic interactions; (3) an explicit affinity parameter (matrix); (4) external (i.e. non-idiotypic) antigens. Suppression is the dominant interaction, i.e. strong idiotypic interactions are always suppressive. This precludes reciprocal stimulation of large clones and thus infinite proliferation. Idiotypic interactions first evoke proliferation, this enlarges the clones, and may in turn evoke suppression. We investigate the effect of idiotypic interactions on normal proliferative immune responses to antigens (e.g. viruses). A 2-D, i.e. two clone, network has a maximum of three stable equilibria: the virgin state and two asymmetric immune states. The immune states only exist if the affinity of the idiotypic interaction is high enough. Stimulation with antigen leads to a switch from the virgin state to the corresponding immune state. The network therefore remembers antigens, i.e. it accounts for immunity/memory by switching beteen multiple stable states. 3-D systems have, depending on the affinities, 9 qualitatively different states. Most of these also account for memory by state switching. Our idiotypic network however fails to account for the control of proliferation, e.g. suppression of excessive proliferation. In symmetric networks, the proliferating clones suppress their anti-idiotypic suppressors long before the latter can suppress the former. The absence of proliferation control violates the general assumption that idiotypic interactions play an important role in immune regulation. We therefore test the robustness of these results by abandoning our assumption that proliferation occurs before suppression. We thus define an “escape from suppression” model, i.e. in the “virgin” state idiotypic interactions are now suppressive. This system erratically accounts for memory and never for suppression. We conclude that our “absence of suppression from idiotypic interactions” does not hinge upon our “proliferation before suppression” assumption.