Is it possible to inherit an immunity to an infectious disease?

Why wouldn't they? Measles isn't fatal, so there's no concentration of immunity due to survival. Now if you're talking the Black Death, that's a totally different story.

Measles can most definitely be fatal, it just has a better mortality rate than the black death had/has. Also, luckily the measles is in a family of viruses that has a low mutation and recombination rate, contrary to what Steven Soderbergh might lead people to believe, so you keep immunity your whole life.

When has measles wiped out 1/3 of a continent? If the Black Death is less lethal now, it's because most of the people without at least partial immunity, died hundreds of years ago.

Did you misunderstand what I wrote? Measles has a good mortality rate, I think it is only around 0.3% (3 deaths in 1000 cases). The black death had a mortality rate of around 55% which is almost 3 death in 5 cases and some people say 75% which is over 7 deaths in 10 cases. See now what I am talking about. Also, I never said anything about it being less lethal now. I am not even sure exactly what it was, they say it was Yersinia pestis bacteria, but if you look at it from an epidemiology and sociology standpoint that seems unlikely. It seemed to spread person to person and people who lived through Yersinia pestis bacteria outbreaks did not think it was the same. I know they cultured that bacteria from victims and it is possible that it was a very virulent strain, but it is also possible that the victims also had a Yersinia pestis infection as well as something else, like a hemorrhagic fever virus.
 
Measles can most definitely be fatal, it just has a better mortality rate than the black death had/has. Also, luckily the measles is in a family of viruses that has a low mutation and recombination rate, contrary to what Steven Soderbergh might lead people to believe, so you keep immunity your whole life.

When has measles wiped out 1/3 of a continent? If the Black Death is less lethal now, it's because most of the people without at least partial immunity, died hundreds of years ago.

Maybe not 1/3 of a continent, but measles killed millions of native Americans, particularly on the West Coast, and took a huge toll in Hawiai.

While there may not be total immunity, this argues that there are genetic factors passed down that change a disease from life threatoning to dangerous. We saw many examples of this in North America as the native population succumbed to childhood diseases that were, for the most part, just inconveniant for the Europeans.

In Guns, Germs, and Steel, by Jared Diamond, he spends a great deal of time pointing out factors that helped create a disease resistance for europeans and asians that the native americans did not have.

I'll bet today's Native Americans and Hawaiians DO have an increased resistance to measles for the same reason Europeans developed a higher resistance to the Black Death, those without it died and the gene pool became weighted towards resistance.
 
In the book "Triumph of the City" by Edward Glaeser, who is a Professor of Economics at Harvard University, the author states:

"Many factors help explain the rise of the West-- the development of military prowess and technology through constant warfare, the painful acquisition of immunity to infectious disease through centuries of exposure, the consolidation of powerful nation-states-- but the growing commercial cities of Italy, England, and the Low Countries did more than their share." (page 22)

Is it possible to inherit an immunity to an infectious disease? And if it should happen that a human being through chance genetic mutation has an immune system that makes him less susceptible to some communicable disease, a few centuries isn't long enough time for such an advantageous mutation to spread throughout the population of most of Europe.:cuckoo:

Someone care to comment?

Being less susceptible isn't the same as "immunity". Just sayin'.
 
Why wouldn't they? Measles isn't fatal, so there's no concentration of immunity due to survival. Now if you're talking the Black Death, that's a totally different story.

Measles can most definitely be fatal, it just has a better mortality rate than the black death had/has. Also, luckily the measles is in a family of viruses that has a low mutation and recombination rate, contrary to what Steven Soderbergh might lead people to believe, so you keep immunity your whole life.

Wow. That is really interesting. I had all my vaccinations as a kid, but just got my titers drawn and was only immune to measles still. I had to restart the whole series. Anyways, I was curious as to why I would only retain my immunity to measles.

what would cause someone to lose their immunities?
 
Measles can most definitely be fatal, it just has a better mortality rate than the black death had/has. Also, luckily the measles is in a family of viruses that has a low mutation and recombination rate, contrary to what Steven Soderbergh might lead people to believe, so you keep immunity your whole life.

Wow. That is really interesting. I had all my vaccinations as a kid, but just got my titers drawn and was only immune to measles still. I had to restart the whole series. Anyways, I was curious as to why I would only retain my immunity to measles.

what would cause someone to lose their immunities?

There are several ways to lose your immunities. One way is that the microbe mutates to such an extent that it is no longer recognized by your antibodies or helper T cells. Another way is that while fighting off new infections and creating memory cells for that infection you have to get rid of some old ones to make way for the new ones. Immunity to certain pathogens drops off more rapidly than others without either of the previous two things happening for unknown reasons. Antibodies are made more specific for their target through a processes known as somatic hypermutation and this can sometimes go wrong so you end up with less effective or even ineffective B or T cell receptors for that infection. Also, exposure to chemicals that effect the immune system cells, cancer, drugs, plasmaphoresis (the removal, filtration, and reintroduction of plasma), bone marrow transplants.
 
Measles can most definitely be fatal, it just has a better mortality rate than the black death had/has. Also, luckily the measles is in a family of viruses that has a low mutation and recombination rate, contrary to what Steven Soderbergh might lead people to believe, so you keep immunity your whole life.

Wow. That is really interesting. I had all my vaccinations as a kid, but just got my titers drawn and was only immune to measles still. I had to restart the whole series. Anyways, I was curious as to why I would only retain my immunity to measles.

what would cause someone to lose their immunities?

FurtherBB covered it. In my case, I hope it was just time. I am 33 and was vaccinated about 30 years ago. I have always been healthy and don't have any underlying medical conditions that I know of. I hope I am not one of those people that can't convert immunity. I'll find out in a month or two when I get another antibody titer drawn.
 
In the book "Triumph of the City" by Edward Glaeser, who is a Professor of Economics at Harvard University, the author states:

"Many factors help explain the rise of the West-- the development of military prowess and technology through constant warfare, the painful acquisition of immunity to infectious disease through centuries of exposure, the consolidation of powerful nation-states-- but the growing commercial cities of Italy, England, and the Low Countries did more than their share." (page 22)

Is it possible to inherit an immunity to an infectious disease? And if it should happen that a human being through chance genetic mutation has an immune system that makes him less susceptible to some communicable disease, a few centuries isn't long enough time for such an advantageous mutation to spread throughout the population of most of Europe.:cuckoo:

Someone care to comment?
Sure I'll comment.

You don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

Go read a book.You don't know much about anthropolgy, sociology, or immuniology, either.

I suggest you might start with Jared Diamon's book "Guns Germs and Steel".
 
Wow. That is really interesting. I had all my vaccinations as a kid, but just got my titers drawn and was only immune to measles still. I had to restart the whole series. Anyways, I was curious as to why I would only retain my immunity to measles.

what would cause someone to lose their immunities?

FurtherBB covered it. In my case, I hope it was just time. I am 33 and was vaccinated about 30 years ago. I have always been healthy and don't have any underlying medical conditions that I know of. I hope I am not one of those people that can't convert immunity. I'll find out in a month or two when I get another antibody titer drawn.

I actually forgot a lot of things, as you get older your thymus turns to fat, it starts in your teens and is mostly fat by the time you are 65. This causes a great loss in T cell diversity and is the reason that older people have more trouble fighting off infections. Splenectomies, tonsillectomies, lymph node removal, and thymectomies can all cause you to lose some memory cells. Then there are genetic disorders of the immune system. Also, some pathogens have what are known as super antigens. The toxic shock toxin is a super antigen. What happens is they can activate T cells without secondary signals that are not specific for the toxin and in the case of the toxic shock toxin up to 20% of all T cells are activated. Not only does this cause a horrible cytokine storm that can kill you, but when those activated T cells do not receive any more signals they die by apoptosis. So, you can lose a great deal of T cells during an infection like this and some of them may be required to activate memory B cells to produce antibodies.
 
During the last three months of pregnancy, antibodies from the mother are passed to the unborn baby through the placenta.

This type of immunity is called passive immunity, because the baby has been given antibodies rather than making them itself. Antibodies are the cells in the immune system which help protect the body against bacteria and viruses.

The amount and type of antibodies passed to the baby depends on the mother's immunity. For example, if the mother has had chickenpox, she will have developed immunity against the disease, and some of the chickenpox antibodies will be passed to the baby. However, if the mother has never had chickenpox, the baby will not be protected.

Immunity in newborn babies is only temporary and starts to decrease after the first few weeks, or months. Breast milk also contains antibodies, which means that babies who are breastfed have passive immunity for longer. The thick, yellowish milk (colostrum) that is produced for the first few days after birth is particularly rich in antibodies.

Premature babies are at higher risk of developing an illness because their immune systems are not as strong, and they have not had as many antibodies passed to them.

As newborn immunity is only temporary, it is important to begin childhood immunisations when your baby is two months old. This applies to babies who are either premature or full-term.

How long do babies carry their mother's immunity? - Health questions - NHS Choices
 
True, otherwise kids wouldnt keep getting the measles every generation if the entire immunity to specific diseases were inherited, would they?

No one dies from the measles in this day and age. Unless a disease kills off the segment lacking immunity, it's not going to affect the distribution of the gene for that immunity.
 
The best illustration of inherited immunity in a human population involves smallpox. We don't have any record of the first emergence of this disease because it happened around 12,000 years ago, shortly before the dawn of recorded history. It's a reasonable supposition, though, that when it first appeared the populations of Europe, Asia, and Africa were decimated. By historical times, Old World populations had developed genetic partial immunity to smallpox that reduced the mortality rate to something around 30%. But this immunity was not shared by New World humans, so that when Europeans made contact with the Native Americans, the disease spread rapidly and wiped out an estimated 90-95% of the pre-Columbian population. That would make this the worst plague by far in recorded history, far outstripping the Black Death, which at 33% of the population of Europe runs only a distant second.
 
True, otherwise kids wouldnt keep getting the measles every generation if the entire immunity to specific diseases were inherited, would they?

No one dies from the measles in this day and age. Unless a disease kills off the segment lacking immunity, it's not going to affect the distribution of the gene for that immunity.

People do still die from the measles when there is an outbreak. There is no gene for the immunity of that disease.
 
The best illustration of inherited immunity in a human population involves smallpox. We don't have any record of the first emergence of this disease because it happened around 12,000 years ago, shortly before the dawn of recorded history. It's a reasonable supposition, though, that when it first appeared the populations of Europe, Asia, and Africa were decimated. By historical times, Old World populations had developed genetic partial immunity to smallpox that reduced the mortality rate to something around 30%. But this immunity was not shared by New World humans, so that when Europeans made contact with the Native Americans, the disease spread rapidly and wiped out an estimated 90-95% of the pre-Columbian population. That would make this the worst plague by far in recorded history, far outstripping the Black Death, which at 33% of the population of Europe runs only a distant second.

The immunity that Europeans had was not inherited, it was acquired from exposure as far as everything I have learned. This can also be seen by the variola major outbreak in Germany at the beginning of the eradication program that had a mortality rate of 65% because none of the people had been exposed to it before.
 
There was a PBS program that started out talking about survivors of the Black plague and ended with an example of some guy who is immune to HIV...

... don't remember the name of the program but it may have been part of the Secrets of the Dead or NOVA series.
:eusa_shifty:
 
Probably due to more money available for a better diet and health care...
:confused:
Social rank 'linked to immunity'
10 April 2012 - The level of the blood's immunity seem to respond to changes in social rank
A study of rhesus macaque monkeys may have solved a long-standing puzzle on a link between social rank and health. A study of 10 social groups of macaque females showed that the activity level of an individual's immune genes was an accurate predictor of her social rank. In a paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the team also showed that the monkey's immunity changed when social rank was altered. The work suggests that status drives immune health, rather than vice-versa. A great many studies have shown associations in both humans and non-human primates between social environment and biological markers of health.

In previous studies of rhesus macaques, the so-called dominance rank has been correlated to levels of the stress-linked glucocorticoid hormones, sex hormones, the brain chemicals serotonin and dopamine, and white blood cell counts. But one unanswered question concerns cause and effect: does a compromised immunity or imbalance of some chemical cause a particular social rank, or does taking on a particular social rank set the immune system and neural dials?

Jenny Tung, now at Duke University, and colleagues addressed this question by carefully assigning social rank to 10 groups of rhesus macaques, each containing five females. This can be done by altering the order in which females are introduced into the group; the later she arrives, the lower her social rank. The team then measured the levels of a broad class of immune cells, peripheral blood mononuclear cells, in the bloodstream. They found that on the basis of those levels of circulating immune cells alone, they could predict an individual female's social rank with 80% accuracy.

Further studies that investigated the degree to which hundreds of immunity-related genes were "switched on" also showed increased immune activity in higher-ranking females. What is more, the team found that as rank shifted among seven of the females, the data corresponding to gene activity was again enough to guess an individual's new rank with an accuracy of 85%. "The current results support the idea that changes in gene regulation help to explain links between the social environment and physiology, potentially supplying an important piece to the puzzle of how social effects 'get under the skin'," the team wrote.

Though the findings might seem to suggest that low social rank, or a decrease in social rank, can lead to reduced immune health, the team said it was "encouraging" that the effects can be counteracted by a change in the social environment. "Our results motivate efforts to develop a nuanced understanding of social effects on gene regulation," they wrote, "with the aim of both exploring its evolutionary and ecological consequences and addressing its effects on human health."

BBC News - Social rank 'linked to immunity'
 

Forum List

Back
Top