OK, I'm going to launch a slew of messages here, largely in response to your post and that of PB.
>> By the way, there is nothing Pseudo about your biology info. <<
Word for word, almost exactly the wording that I used in an old post.
:-)
CD tables...... well, it helps to have grown up with them. In 1980, I was making anti-CD4, anti-CD8, anti-CD2, etc., and discarding them because they duplicated "specificities" that had already been described. Little did I know that antibodies against distinct epitopes would prove useful. Sigh.
But, first, how do you keep track of them? I was recently V.P. Product Development at PharMingen. We made a super-human effort to update descriptions of the various antigens and to keep them accurate. Call 800-825-5832 and ask for the latest catalog. You can also ask if they have an updated wall chart. If they don't have a wall chart with the newer designations, then R&D Systems (TECH) most likely will.
PB's link is great, but it is way, way out of date.
Immunology lingo designed to keep people out of the field, to eliminate competition? Hey, my background is the MHC..... you ain't seen nothing.
The data by Kirk et al. is compelling. I would go further and admit that it amazed me. And, having followed the work of Noelle et al. closely, I was expecting great things from anti-CD40L *before* the work appeared.
Cheers! Rick |
