Pith. sign in

REVIEW

How different are self and nonself?

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2212.12049 v2 pith:IEA5AZFT submitted 2022-12-22 q-bio.CB

classification q-bio.CB
keywords selfnonselfreliablesimilardiscriminationdistinctionsdistributionimmune
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Biological and artificial networks routinely make reliable distinctions between similar inputs, and the rules for making these distinctions are learned. In some ways, self/nonself discrimination in the immune system is similar, being both reliable and (partly) learned through thymic selection. In contrast to other examples, we show that the distributions of self and nonself peptides are nearly identical but strongly inhomogeneous. Reliable discrimination is possible only because self-peptides are a particular finite sample drawn out of this distribution, and T cells can target the spaces in between these samples. In conventional learning problems, this would constitute overfitting and lead to disaster. Here, the strong inhomogeneities imply instead that the immune system gains by targeting peptides which are similar to self, with maximum sensitivity for sequences just one or two substitutions away. This prediction from the structure of the underlying distribution in sequence space agrees, for example, with the observed responses to mutation derived cancer neoantigens.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools