Talk:Major histocompatibility complex

Untitled
The most common spelling is MHC upper case. User:JOK 18 Aug 2005
 * see reference below
 * Koopmann JO, Hammerling GJ, Momburg F. Generation, intracellular transport and loading of peptides associated with MHC class I molecules. Curr Opin Immunol. 1997 Feb;9(1):80-8. Review.

I moved to the upper-case spelling since it seems like a specific named entity (albeit one that is common to many species) rather one of a crowd of entities called "major histocompatibility complexes". But I don't really know. Stan 01:53, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * It's definitely lowercase in most of the literature (even though it's acronym is MHC). --Lexor 02:12, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Alberts et al. Molecular Biology of the Cell (1994) cites it as lowercase. --Lexor 02:17, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Histocompatibility molecule - definition
I followed a link for "histocompatibility molecule" from the article entitled "antigen" and got HTC.

Are these synonymous. If so please state it. If not what is the difference?

===========

I've no idea what "HTC" is. Do you mean "MHC"? "HTC" is certainly not a standard abbreviation for MHC or histocompatability. MHC is, however, close to the same thing as "histocompatibility molecule".

In terms of histocompatibility and MHC. HTC is an abbreviation for homozygous typing cells. These are reagent cell lines used to determine HLA specificities using the mixed lymphocyte culture. In more recent years they have become used as reference material for defining HLA specificities.

Reference??
I noticed we dont have any reference for the article!! Can the authors please provide them?? Also, the suggestion of merging MHC class I article should be considered. I personally think we should have them separate, with the MHC class I article having much more indepth research information. While this article will just give an overview and introduction the MHC class I molecules. And the same thing should be for Class II of the MHC molecules. What do others think?? --LowLifer 06:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

==========

agreed there should be a referenced page for MHC 1 AND MHC 2

Should this article and the one on Human Leucocyte Antigen be merged together ?
Should this article and the one on Human Leucocyte Antigen be merged together ?

yea please do, it is part of the same system of MHC's

No, the two articles should not be merged. But it's desirable to link them.

Often times we would like to read a one paragraph description rather than a scholarly and detailed article (which may require a commitment of large chunk of time). a link directing to the detailed article would be helpful instead of merging.

I think they should be merged. There is no functional difference, just a historical one; MHC class I and HLA class I refer to exactly the same molecules, it's silly to keep separate articles on them. (Technically MHC is a broader category than HLA, since HLA refers to the human version of MHC -- human lymphoctye antigen -- but then to be consistent you'd also have to include separate articles on bovine, swine, equine, macaque, chimpanzee, chicken ... leukocyte antigen. If you need a one-paragraph intro then put a one-paragraph intro in, don't expect people to search through multiple different sets of nomenclature for a one-paragraph summary.

Should also make a choice between "MHC class I" and "Class I MHC" and use one or the other consistently.

Editors are likely to make corrections in one, leaving another untouched, if only because they don't realize that there are multiple nearly-identical sections, or don't know which is the "right" one.

I think the best course of action is to merge all of the related articles together, but have a specific section in the article for a general discussion of "MHC", and then one for "HLA", and "MHC class I" and "MHC class II", etc.. That is to say, have a general overview of what a MHC is for the first paragraph, then have numerous content links that lead to more specific definitions and information on more specific subjects. In this way, it is plausible to make all of the information accessible from one page, while still segmenting the information in such a manner than the user only needs to read what is relevant, rather than wade thru oceans of text.

I also agree that we need to choose between "MHC class I" and "class I MHC." The textbook I use, Martini's "Fundamentals of Anatomy and Physiology, sixth edition", uses the former arrangement.

03:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

--->I agree with this post... 2016, 23 Feb, 2006 (EST)

In my own humble opinion, i think they should be merged in order to reduce the confusion most non-medically inclined people experience. And if there is need further links should be included

My sense is No, the MHC and HLA articles should not be merged. MHC is not unique to humans but is found in most vertebrates. Differences in gene structures between mice and man, for example, have been very enlightening. So, please consider this a second vote to not merge but to link these two important articles. Keesiewonder 14:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I would not merge. The functional descriptions of MHC in this page are more generally mechanistic than on the HLA page; the HLA page also features a substantial bent towards clinical genetic utility than this page, which I'd fear would be lost upon merging. The gene structure differences I think largely immaterial, since the MHC page doesn't discuss MHC in a manner that isn't applicable to the human system. Jbarin 13:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC) --- No Merge. HLA are a subset of MHC, just like CLA, DLA, etc.PB666 yap 13:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Evolutionary psychology of MHC
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=7630893&dopt=Abstract

The above article was very influential and should probably be discussed here. - User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see - it's present, but not referenced! - User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Slightly wrong idea in the molecular biology section
Although B-cells can recognize antigens (Ag) by themself (thymus independent antigen, type 1 & 2), this kind of Ag recognition process is much weaker than the thymus dependent one. One might even say that the TI process won't even unleash the full potential of B-cells as some of their most important features, as memory cells or antibodies of families other than IgM, aren't even a result of this pathway.

The responce to TI antigens is generally weaker, no memory cells are formed, and IgM is the predominant antibody secreted, revealing a low level of class switching. (Chapter 11, p254, Kuby et al)

The reference to B-cells, besides being misguiding and somewhat undervaluating, is ultimately wrong. This is about the molecular-biologic definition MHC and the author describes just the B-cell activation pathway that does not require MHC! How much relevant is that, when there is actually one that does requires it which isn't even mentioned?

I'm really sorry about my poor english and not beeing able to explain this more clearly but I'm not a native speaker nor am I a profound expert on this matter.

PS: My source was the book "Immunology": Kuby et al, 5th ed., Freeman ed, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Subpt (talk • contribs) 23:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

TAP
TAP is actually in the MHC class II region, i think? Snellios (talk) 14:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

YES. According to Abbas Inmunology it is in MHC II region. NOT in I region as it says in article. Please someone fix this?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tunante89 (talk • contribs) 11:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

confusing
The article is confusing. It is about the gene. But the links to MHC class I and MHC class II (which in this article are about the gene)are about the protein.Ortho (talk) 17:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have the same question. Not supposed the term MHC refers to the protein? independly to be coded by the gen, first was discovered like a complex of proteins and then was named. After was discovered the gene... and if we are rigurously with, the gene name will be mhc (minuscule) however i'm not sure this is the family's name of the gene... Finally i think the definition should be reconsider or the article, cause the major information given its about the protein, not the gene... i could do, but english isnt my mother lenguaje... --Egonauta (talk) 06:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistency
First para. "The major histocompatibility complex (MHC) ... gene family found in most vertebrates"

MHC evolution and allelic diversity Section - towards end of article "MHC gene families are found in all vertebrates"

Should it be all or most vertebrates? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.100.5 (talk) 07:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Class I MHCs are present in all cells, not just those that are nucleated.
Class I MHCs are actually present in anucleated cells; for example, they have been found in erythrocytes. This is apparently a new discovery, according to my McGill professor. Could someone possibly run a pubmed search? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.168.152.20 (talk) 00:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The majority of human MHC I alleles were acquired by introgression from archaic humans (Neanderthals and Denisovans)
Gee, this sure looks relevant:


 * "In most modern human populations, the majority of MHC I alleles have been acquired by introgression from archaic humans (Neanderthals and Denisovans)"

Origin and plasticity of MHC I-associated self peptides (2011) Slartibartfastibast (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Formatting Problem with new diagram
The new diagram that has been added, showing MHC:Peptide bonding is having formatting difficulties, which I cannot correct so as to appear properly on Large and Small screens. I will make further attempts to fix this, however any help in the matter from more experienced users would be greatly appreciated. PondStibbons (talk) 21:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Major histocompatibility complex. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090905031057/http://www.tcells.org/pMHCI.html to http://www.tcells.org/pMHCI.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

New table?
Is anyone else not happy with the table recently inserted into the MHC class 1 section? David notMD (talk) 15:00, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Complicated...
Is there a way that this can be written in terms that the everage person can understand? Carlimited (talk) 02:21, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Glycoproteins
The article has a link on the bottom towards "Glycoproteins". However had, if you search on the page (that is, the main page for "Major histocompaibility complex") for the term "glycoprotein" then nothing else shows up, so only that bottom link shows up. I believe the main article should also mention the term glycoproteins (MHC molecules are glycoproteins) and also EXPLAIN why, e. g. at the least mention one or two such glyco-modifications that allow us to classify MHC molecules as glycoproteins. 2A02:8388:1641:4980:0:0:0:2 (talk) 14:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC)