◇◇新语丝(www.xys.org)(xys.dxiong.com)(xys.3322.org)(xys.xlogit.com)◇◇   看看魏于全院士是如何为自己的免疫印迹图片辩护的   先看司履生教授的提问:However, when using whole cells as antigens, regardless of cell type or species of origin, the immunized animals will elicit a variety of antibodies to the many macromolecules on the cell membrane and in the cytoplasm and nucleus, including major histocompatibility complex antigens, receptors, cytoskeleton proteins and signal transduction molecules. Because all of these proteins can be immunogens, the immunized animals should produce antibodies against most, if not all, of them. In the experiments of Wei et al., however, the mouse lymphocytes responded to very few cellular proteins. (言下 之意:条带不会这么少吧?)   魏于全院士的答复:With regard to his first concern, to our knowledge there is no published evidence to support the view that animals immunized with whole cells as antigens should produce antibodies directed against most, if not all, of the proteins in those cells. In contrast, it has been reported that animals challenged with xenogeneic cells produce antibodies against some, but not most, of the cellular proteins. Other cancer-cell vaccines elicit antibodies to only a single antigen. (言下之意:就是这么少,有人比我还少呢!)   因此,魏于全院士并没有像细胞和海龟网友那样从实验条件方面来解释他的 免疫印迹图片。   在这里我还要重复一下我的观点:免疫印迹图片的条带的“模式”(条带的 相对深浅以及相对位置)是相对固定的。如果司履生教授和魏于全院士的免疫程 序是一样的,他们的结果应该具有可比性。   其实判断该图片是否造假还有一个佐证:VEGFR-2 和 a integrin可以作为 肿瘤疫苗是否是魏于全院士首先发现的?是否已得到他人的验证?如果是,那么 魏于全院士造假的嫌疑就大大降低了。因为很难想象有人能够在没有任何实验证 据的情况下凭空推测出前人未报道过的肿瘤相关抗原。   川大毕业   2006-04-22 (XYS20060422) ◇◇新语丝(www.xys.org)(xys.dxiong.com)(xys.3322.org)(xys.xlogit.com)◇◇