Adaptive Immunity: How Randomness Comes to the Rescue
"The BioLogos Forum" frequently features essays from The BioLogos Foundation's leaders and Senior Fellows. Please note the views expressed here are those of the author, not necessarily of The BioLogos Foundation. You can read more about what we believe here.
Today's entry was written by Kathryn Applegate. Kathryn Applegate is Program Director at The BioLogos Foundation. She received her PhD in computational cell biology at The Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, Calif. At Scripps, she developed computer vision software tools for analyzing the cell's infrastructure, the cytoskeleton.
The last time my husband and I went camping in the desert, we noticed something: it’s a dangerous place! Everything seems to be trying to kill you. Besides extreme temperatures and little green men (which we didn’t see, sadly), you have to watch out for things like snakes, scorpions, spiders, ticks, cacti, and the rare but devastating hantavirus.
Even in the relative safety of your home, viruses, bacteria, parasites, and fungi are an inescapable part of life. Without a functioning immune system, we would easily succumb to infection from these pathogens. All animals share a basic set of defense strategies called the innate immune system, which includes protective barriers like skin and special cells that gobble up foreign material. In addition to this first line of defense, vertebrates have a highly sophisticated secondary system in place, called the adaptive immune system.
Previously, we examined the role of randomness in self-assembly processes and chaotic systems (here and here). Today I want to explain how the adaptive immune system harnesses the power of randomness to protect the body from assaults it has never seen before. To me, this topic represents a compelling example of the way God works through natural processes that he has put in place to preserve and uphold life.
Adaptive immune responses come in two types: antibody responses and cell-mediated responses. Each type is executed by a different kind of white blood cell, or lymphocyte. B cells, produced in the bone marrow, generate antibodies, while T cells, produced in the thymus, directly or indirectly kill pathogen-infected cells. Here we will focus on how antibodies are made within B cells, as their production requires randomness at multiple levels.
Antibodies: Signposts for Destruction
The main function of an antibody is to bind tightly and specifically to an antigen, usually an exposed portion of a virus or bacterium. This binding can inhibit the normal function of the pathogen, just as your ability to walk is inhibited when a toddler hugs you around both legs. Antibody binding also acts as a signpost, alerting cells of the innate immune system to destroy the pathogen.
Antibodies are proteins. Like all proteins, antibodies are strings of amino acids that fold up into a particular 3D shape. As you can see from the illustration at left, antibodies are Y-shaped proteins made from four separate amino acid chains: two “light” chains and two “heavy” chains. (The heavy chains are about twice as long as the light chains, so they have a higher molecular weight.) All antibodies are identical in the blue “constant” region but are quite different from each another in the orange “variable” region. The shape of the variable region determines what the antibody will bind to (if anything) and is consequently called the antigen-binding site.
If the antibody were a tool in your garage, it might be an 8-in-1 screwdriver, with the constant region being the handle and the variable region being an exchangeable bit. Each bit is designed to work with a different kind of screw, and as you probably know, using the wrong size or shape of bit can be fruitless and frustrating. Similarly, the shape of the antibody’s variable region must be exactly complementary to the antigen for it to bind.
Mix-and-Match Mutations Create Diversity
Amazingly, animals can manufacture antibodies for not just eight but literally trillions of foreign particles, even synthetic compounds never encountered in nature. How can a B cell design an antibody for a novel antigen when its shape depends on the amino acid sequence, which, in turn, is encoded by a gene? Humans only have about 25,000 genes total, so it can’t be that each potential antibody is generated by a separate gene.
Surely the design of a highly specific antigen-binding site could not be accomplished by random mutations! Actually, yes, though as we will see, the story is not as simple as a single gene undergoing spontaneous mutations every now and then. The mutations are programmed to occur in just a tiny part of the genome, and instead of involving changes in single DNA “letters” (bases), they involve random rearrangements of whole gene segments.
I’ll explain by way of analogy. Imagine packing for a trip. You will be gone for two weeks, but because your airline charges ridiculous fees to check luggage, you opt to take only a small duffle bag. You have a wide variety of events planned, so each day will require a different outfit. Since space is limited, you grab your favorite pair of shoes—they go with everything (work with me, ladies; analogies aren’t perfect)—along with three pairs of pants and five tops. Assuming each top matches each pair of pants, you can make 15 unique outfits. Some are more casual while others are dressier; some are better for hot weather while others are more appropriate for rain. In other words, by including a variety of styles, you can cover all your fashion needs with great efficiency.
Amazingly, B cells are able to produce a huge variety of antibodies by mixing and matching DNA segments to create unique antigen-binding sites. The pair of shoes is like the constant region; it is used with every “outfit.” Each pair of pants is like a different heavy chain, while each top is like a different light chain. When a new B cell begins to mature, it randomly picks some combination of gene segments (an outfit) from many options in the genome (the suitcase). It then physically stitches the segments together and from now on only produces one kind of antibody. (That’s like only getting to wear one outfit for the rest of your life!)
I’ve dramatically oversimplified the picture here. In reality, to make the variable region for its heavy chain, the maturing B cell randomly chooses one possible segment from each of three segment types, called V, D, and J (for variable, diversity, and joining, respectively). There are 51 V segments to choose from, 6 J segments, and 27 D segments, which yield 8,262 (51x6x27) possible heavy-chain variable regions. The light chains are a bit simpler, as they don’t use D segments. There are 316 possible combinations of V and J segments for the light chain. Thus, there are 2.6 million (8,262x316) different antigen-binding sites possible from this mix-and-match process.
More Diversity from Built-in Imprecision
2.6 million is a lot, but not even close to the trillions of antigens out in the world. Where does the rest of the diversity come from? As it turns out, the process of stitching together the V, D, and J gene segments into light and heavy chains isn’t very precise. To recombine (reshuffle) the gene segments, two lymphocyte-specific proteins, RAG1 and RAG2 (for recombination activating genes), form a complex to first physically break the double-stranded DNA in specific (but unpredictable) places. Then the complex works together with a cleanup crew of other proteins to rejoin the DNA segments in a different order.
Normally when DNA breaks occur, say due to radiation from the sun, this same kind of DNA repair occurs to rejoin the two ends very precisely. In developing B cells, however, a few bases can be added or removed, analogous to lengthening the hem of your pants or cutting the sleeves off your shirt. This built-in imprecision leads to an estimated 100 million-fold increase in the diversity of antigen-binding sites.
This boost in diversity comes at a significant cost, however. Since each amino acid is encoded by three DNA bases, the addition or deletion of only one or two bases will cause a shift in the “reading frame” such that the DNA code becomes meaningless and the B cell cannot make a functional antibody. Many developing B cells suffer this fate and die in the bone marrow, never getting to debut their one outfit. Yet, the cost is worth it to the organism for the benefits that come with a robust immune response.
What’s the Point?
Today we have seen two ways in which B cells exploit the power of randomness to make an enormous repertoire of antibodies. First, the RAG proteins break and rejoin the DNA at random sites to create unique combinations of V, D, and J gene segments. Second, a random small number of bases can be added or lost when the DNA ends are rejoined, leading to the insertion or deletion of one or more amino acids in the antigen-binding site.
The point of my post today is not to reveal the ingeniousness of the adaptive immune system, though I hope it accomplishes that also. Rather, I want to emphasize that God uses natural processes—indeed, even a “blind” system for generating massive amounts of diversity—to carry out his purposes. If God uses natural mechanisms that work over short time scales (less than a week) to evolve life-giving solutions to disease, mightn’t he also use a similarly elegant approach to creating life over long periods of time?
In my next post, we will continue to see how B cells and antibodies function and begin to see if there is any evidence for evolution of the immune system.
References
Alberts, Bruce et al. “The Adaptive Immune System.” Molecular Biology of the Cell. Fourth Edition. 2002.
Story, Craig M. “The God of Christiantiy and the G.O.D. of Immunology: Chance, Complexity, and God’s Action in Nature.” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. 61:4. Dec. 2009.
For the latest comments, subscribe to our Comment RSS feed. See a comment that violates our Commenting Guidelines? Use the "Report Inappropriate Comment" tool in the upper-right corner.


May 13th 2010
The interesting bit here, as the title says, is that “sloppiness,” resulting in “randomness,” is harnessed as a “design” feature in B cells. It allows B cells to monitor for millions of different antigens, including those the body has never been exposed to, and even those that don’t exist yet. After a B cell has been activated by an exposure event, it transforms into a “memory” B cell that produces clones of itself to guard against future exposure to the same antigen.
That by itself is not directly relevant to the creation/evolution debate, since it’s the micro-est of “micro-evolution.” Properly speaking it isn’t evolution at all, since B cells don’t mate and produce offspring, let alone participate in natural selection. But it IS an example where the use of randomness itself is a brilliant “design” decision, which has a bearing on the question why God, who presumably could have designed us on a drawing board, would instead resort to a process fueled by randomness and guided by natural selection. It doesn’t take much pondering to convince oneself that this is clearly the “right” solution to the problem, and a purpose-built, deterministic immune system would be obviously inferior.
Reply to this commentMay 13th 2010
Again with the random? Haven’t we already determined that “random” is really just a process with way too many variables and is way too complex for us to determine? Hypothetically, how do we know a mutation doesn’t occur here when a calcium ion reacts with a nuclieotide? And calcium is pumped into the nucleus during infection? And what if that specific sequence has a higher affinity for calcium? That’s probably not the mechanism, but my point is there is probably a non-random mechanism.
Reply to this commentMay 13th 2010
There’s even a process in (most) eukaryotes that brings random variations in genes together. Moreover, macroevolution just happens to appear oddly akin to the results of mutations, recombination, and selection known and accepted by anti-evolutionists.
Will coincidences never cease?
Glen Davidson
Reply to this commentMay 13th 2010
More good stuff, but again, we can dig much deeper here.
In many ways, we can think of antibody generation as a model for evolution itself. Randomness does play a key role in this process, but it’s like the cell is catching lightening in a bottle. The randomness is both exploited and guided by various features of the overall cellular architecture (some listed in Kathryn’s essay). Rearrangement-followed- by-fine-tuning, guided by the appropriate bait, is an intelligent use of chance. Consider, as just one example, the business end of the antibody itself – the immunoglobulin fold. Is it possible for other folds to have substituted for the immunoglobulin fold and be just as useful and successful? Could it be possible that there is something special about the immunoglobulin fold? Is our immune system the unfolding of a preadapted state?
Reply to this commentMay 13th 2010
Charlie - A DNA molecule in the nucleus which has an “affinity” for a calcium ion does not result in an antibody (a protein molecule, which is produced outside of the nucleus, and then released or presented outside of the cell) with a similar affinity.
Also, I disagree that antibody production isn’t a model for evolution (“model for” being nonsynonymous with “equal to”). In both cases you see that random changes produce a range of outcomes - some that work and some that don’t - and that successful and highly specific functioning can arise through this process. It demonstrates the principle that when sufficient diversity exists (and can be passed on through heritable elements), what works is allowed to persist and what doesn’t is destroyed (AKA evolution).
I also don’t think it’s accurate to say that antibody production is like catching lighting in a bottle; it’s like making gallons of rain water to get the perfect drop.
Reply to this commentMay 14th 2010
genes encode antibodies. which then get translated into proteins out of the nucleus. Variable splicing in those genes create diverse antbodies. Also, if you noticed that calcium thing was a hypothetical. I’m just saying we probably shouldnt jump to the conclusion that mutations are “random”.
Reply to this commentMay 15th 2010
Kathryn,
Great blog post. I think the immune system is more than a defense system. I think it is also a filtering/ sensory system. Since this is my area or research perhaps I will send in a guest blog.
Some other interesting things to consider: I think if efficiency is a hallmark of creation, then the gene shuffling aspect of antibody production is a marvel of efficiency. Also, it appears that the immune system is overdesigned…for instance invertebrates are missing most of the adaptive immune system, and they do just fine with an innate system. So why do mammals and humans have such a redundant overdesigned system?
Reply to this commentMay 15th 2010
Mike #13465,
I like your thinking here. I think the immune system could be an adapted state derived from an original system which was not necessarily meant for protection against pathogens.
Joe
Reply to this commentMay 16th 2010
Very thought provoking, and the analogy of a trip with limited luggage FINALLY works for me to understand B-Cell adaptive immunity… Biggest challenge to broader applicability is this random mutation that occurs on a relatively small-scale, short-timeframe scale as compared to the large-scale, long-timeframe scales we see in nature. Good progress along the way!
Reply to this commentMay 16th 2010
For what it’s worth, Michael Behe long ago affirmed the employment of randomness in the functioning of the immune system. Such randomness is not incompatible with a larger framework of design, and therefore does not in itself refute the notion of intelligent design.
The author asks: “If God uses natural mechanisms that work over short time scales (less than a week) to evolve life-giving solutions to disease, mightn’t he also use a similarly elegant approach to creating life over long periods of time?”
Overlooking the equivocal, rhetorical use of the term “evolve” in the question, the answer is: “Yes, he *might* have; but why do so many TEs seem to change that *might have* to a *must have*?
For truly empirical science, what God “might have” done, or even what God “must have” done (scientists ought to leave the “must haves” to Leibniz and Spinoza) is beside the point. The question is what God *did* do, and that ought to be a question of evidence. I look forward to Dr. Applegate’s presentation of such evidence.
Reply to this commentMay 16th 2010
Hi CM,
You say tomato, I say tomahto. Fact remains that once that perfect drop is found, a storm is unleashed upon the pathogens, all built around that perfect drop.
The B cells help us to see that life is not passively shaped by the environment, as the B cells generate the “sufficient diversity.” That is, the sufficient diversity is not something that “just is” or “just happens.” It’s the output of a physiological, homeostatic response. It’s about control. It is thus interesting to note this strategy is shared by bacteria, which, when sufficiently stressed by the environment, activate pathways to generate sufficient diversity by actively changing their DNA.
Reply to this commentMay 16th 2010
I would also again note that, in the case of making antibodies, the strategy of generating sufficient diversity may work so well because the star player – the immunoglobulin fold – seems predisposed to play the role of star player. As far as I can tell, there is no evidence that the “sufficient diversity” strategy of the B cells would work as well is any ol’ fold was used.
Reply to this commentMay 16th 2010
Hi Joe,
I’d be interested. I have long suspected some deep connection between the nervous and immune system.
Reply to this commentMay 16th 2010
Mike #13890
You said:
” It is thus interesting to note this strategy is shared by bacteria, which, when sufficiently stressed by the environment, activate pathways to generate sufficient diversity by actively changing their DNA.”
It is also interesting to note that Neisseria use a gene shuffling mechanism similar to the pseudogene insertion gene shuffling mechanism used by birds to scramble their immunoglobulin genes. These bacteria are estimated to create millions of different virulence factors in this manner.
...chalk up another role for pseudogenes
Reply to this commentMay 18th 2010
Good stuff Kathryn,
Reply to this commentRandom does not necessarily equate with purposeless or godless.
Rick
October 8th 2010
For those interested, a substantive scientific reply to this post, written by someone with a Ph.D. is immunology, is now up at:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/comments-on-kathryn-applegate’s-may-posts-on-biologos/
Reply to this commentOctober 8th 2010
Rich, that person “with a Ph.D. is immunology” happens to think that evolution predicts we should see “a dog turn into a cat in a laboratory”, that Archeopteryx was “just a bird”, dreadfully misrepresented the fossil record of horse evolution, and brainlessly regurgitated a series of lies from Jonathan Wells about the peppered-moth experiments. I think I’ll take whatever she has to say with a large pinch of salt.
Reply to this commentOctober 9th 2010
Adrian (33751):
Do you have a precise reference for the statement about a dog turning into a cat in the laboratory?
In any case, as her article is not about dogs or cats or fossils but about immunology (her special field of training), why not respond to what she writes in the article? Are you an immunologist? Do you find flaws in her discussion? And if you do, why not post them where she is likely to read them, i.e., underneath her article?
I think she is quite a modest and humble person and would retract any scientific errors that you could point out. I look forward to hearing your analysis of the science over at UD.
Reply to this commentNovember 10th 2010
Again, for those interested, a further pair of articles, providing a polite but critical response to this article, have been posted by Dr. Donald Ewert, research immunologist/virologist, at:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/adaptive_immunity_chance_or_ne040181.html
and
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/generation_of_antibody_diversi040211.html#more
Reply to this comment