Perspectivas Historicas de La Psiconeuroinmunologia - Robert Ader
Perspectivas Historicas de La Psiconeuroinmunologia - Robert Ader
Perspectivas Historicas de La Psiconeuroinmunologia - Robert Ader
Perspectivas Histricas de la
Psiconeuroinmunologa
de Robert Ader
Ader
Traduccin: Trad. Patricia Ugarte, Fundacin Salud, Buenos Aires, Argentina, Agosto 2010
Ader
(N. del T.) Las referencias no han sido traducidas, aparecen en su idioma original al final del trabajo original en ingls
Ader
Ader
Ader
Rasmussen y sus colegas y otros en las dcadas del 50 y del 60 fracas en captar una
atencin sostenida de los cientficos conductistas, con excepcin de algunos.
Aaron Frederick Rasmussen, hijo, fue ciertamente uno de los pioneros de la
Psiconeuroinmunologa. Su asociacin con Norman Brill, Director del Departamento de
Psiquiatra de la Facultad de Medicina de la Universidad de Los ngeles (UCLA), fue
quizs la primera colaboracin entre un microbilogo / inmunlogo y un cientfico de la
conducta. Rasmussen falleci en 1984, a los 68 aos, despus de haber sido Director del
Departamento de Microbiologa e Inmunologa Mdica (1962-1969) y luego Decano
Asociado de la Escuela de Medicina. Es recordado con mucho cario como maestro
inspirador, y colega y un virlogo sobresaliente cuyos estudios genticos establecieron
las bases para comprender la notoria y mundial variedad del virus de la gripe. Rasmussen
fue un microbilogo experimental meticuloso, que, al mismo tiempo, nunca perdi de
vista el factor husped en las enfermedades. Estaba intrigado por la sabidura
convencional no probada de que los estados emocionales influan en el curso de la
enfermedad infecciosa, como ya haban descrito grandes novelistas de la talla de Thomas
Mann y que haban observado grandes clnicos pre-modernos como William Osler. Un
pensador integrador, no limitado por lneas disciplinarias, Rasmussen busc a Brill para
discutir sus ideas psicomicrobiolgicas.
En 1957 Rasmussen, Marsh y Brill demostraron en una experiencia de stress, el
condicionamiento para evitar, poda incrementar la susceptibilidad de los ratones al virus
de herpes simplex. En una serie de trabajos que son hitos, se observ el efecto
patognico del stress emocional en los animales expuestos al virus del herpes 9, al virus
Coxsackie B 10, y al virus de estomatitis vesicular11. l y sus colaboradores tambin
descubrieron que haba una susceptibilidad disminuida al virus de la poliomielitis en los
monos estresados, una demostracin temprana de la variedad de efectos del stress en la
susceptibilidad a la enfermedad.12 Rasmussen y sus colegas, anticipndose al trabajo
moderno en la psico-oncologa as como en la psiconeuroinmunologa, encontraron que el
stress influa en la malignidad del polyomavirus en los ratones13, y su trabajo posterior
sobre el stress incluy medidas de anticuerpos virales y de produccin de interfern 14,15.
Lamento muchsimo nunca haber conocido a Fred Rasmussen. Su investigacin estableci
el escenario para una variedad de estudios que tratan el stress y la infeccin, tales como
los iniciados por Friedman, Glasgow y Ader, 16,17 y los estudios de Solomon sobre el stress
y las respuestas de anticuerpos a un antgeno bacterial novel.18 ( puede no ser
cientficamente digno de notar pero si lo es de inters personal , que mi colega Nicholas
Cohen, fue un estudiante en el post-doctorado del departamento de Rasmussen en UCLA
a mitad de la dcada del 60. Desafortunadamente la participacin de Rasmussen en esta
investigacin fue disminuyendo, lo cual podra explicar porque le llev a Cohen tanto
tiempo entrar en este campo.)
George Solomon fue otro de los primeros investigadores que demostr que los
estresores ambientales y psicolgicos podan influir en la inmunidad. l y su colega Rudolf
Moos, hicieron observaciones meticulosas de las historias de vida y las caractersticas de
personalidad de los pacientes buscando un indicio de la asociacin frecuentemente
observada entre los estados emocionales y el comienzo de la exacerbacin de la artritis.
Solomon describe el rea como psicoinmunologa y, pese a las preocupaciones de
Ader
algunos de sus colegas, colg un cartel con ese nombre en la puerta de su laboratorio.
Retrospectivamente, la perspectiva de Solomon sobre la Psiconeuroinmunologa derivaba
de la curiosidad, la alegra, la psicodinmica y la organizacin de observaciones dispares.
Igualmente importante, l aduce, es el rol de la tenacidad, la tolerancia a la
frustracin y la habilidad para aceptar el aliento de algunos y rechazar el negativismo
de otros en el desarrollo de nuevas observaciones y teoras.
Inicialmente, Solomon estaba interesado en los factores psicolgicos en el
comienzo y el curso de la enfermedad autoinmune. 19 Ese inters fue incentivado por su
padre que estaba convencido que los factores psicolgicos jugaban un rol en el inicio y
curso de la artritis reumatoidea. Como residente de psiquiatra en el Instituto Langley
Porter, l y W. Jeffrey Fessel estudiaron a los pacientes con lupus eritematoso sistmico
(LES) que tenan sntomas psiquitricos severos. La similitud de los sntomas en LES y los
sntomas observados en la esquizofrenia, lo llevaron a Solomon a preguntarse si la
esquizofrenia sera una enfermedad autoinmune del cerebro con factores genticos y
psicolgicos de predisposicin que podan ser influenciados por experiencias de vida
estresantes. Despus de un perodo en el ejrcito, Solomon regres a la Universidad de
California en San Francisco y a la investigacin de las inmunoglobulinas y la
esquizofrenia .20
Tambin uni fuerzas y estableci una productiva colaboracin con Rudolf Moos,
un psiclogo que estaba estudiando los factores psicosociales en la artritis reumatoidea
(AR). Solomon y Moos ms tarde se unieron al Departamento de Psiquiatra de Stanford,
y continuaron su investigacin en la Universidad San Francisco de California, (UCSF). En
Stanford, encontraron dificultades para obtener acceso a los pacientes artrticos para
esas tonteras psicolgicas. El estudio ms inusual de esta serie de sus trabajos sobre la
artritis reumatoidea 21, fue el que comparaba a los parientes saludables fsicamente de
pacientes de AR ( que se saba tenan una mayor probabilidad de desarrollar una
enfermedad autoinmune) con los propios pacientes AR y , con la consideracin adicional
de si sus sueros contenan o no el factor reumatoideo (un anticuerpo anti IgG
caracterstico de la artritis reumatoidea). Ningn individuo ni los examinadores saban el
estado de los sueros de la poblacin en estudio. Aquellos que fueron negativos para el
factor reumatoideo semejaban lo de una poblacin general: normalmente distribuidos
desde psicolgicamente saludables hasta psicolgicamente perturbados. Sin embargo, los
parientes de los pacientes AR con factor positivo en el factor reumatoideo estaban
psicolgicamente saludables, carentes de ansiedad, depresin o enajenacin e
informaban de una buena relacin con sus parejas, amigos y parientes. El bienestar
psicolgico pareca
ejercer una influencia protectora
frente a una probable
predisposicin gentica a la enfermedad autoinmune.
El futuro, Solomon pens, estaba en estudios mecanicistas, y lo que es ms, vio
una luz. En 1963, ley un trabajo de Robert Good 22 quien postulaba una relacin entre la
autoinmunidad y la incompetencia inmunolgica relativa. Frank Dixon 23 relacion dicha
incompetencia a la formacin patognica de complejos de anticuerpos y antgenos que
ocurren cuando la cantidad de anticuerpos es baja en relacin al antgeno. Solomon
inmediatamente los coloc juntos: incompetencia inmunolgica, hormonas
adrenocorticosteroides e inmunosupresin con stress y corticosteroides. Una nocin
Ader
cndida y simplista, pens, pero sin embargo heurstica. Estas nociones fueron
presentadas en Emociones, inmunidad y enfermedad: Una integracin terica
especulativa publicado en 1964. 24 Solomon intent reclutar a Moos en el desarrollo de
un laboratorio en el cual pudieran estresar a los ratones. Despus de todo, el pens
nadie creera los datos clnicos, pero si se convenceran con experimentos con
animales. Moos , sin embargo, no era un experimentalista y eligi continuar con otros
intereses, as que Solomon estaba de por s solo. Le dieron un laboratorio, pero l
reconoci que no saba prcticamente nada sobre inmunologa. Casi todos los
inmunlogos con los que habl le dijeron que el sistema inmune era un sistema
autnomo, totalmente auto regulatorio y, por lo tanto, no sujeto a las influencias neuroendcrinas. Sin embargo, Solomon estableci su laboratorio de psicoinmunologa.
Aunque tuvo el apoyo y tutelaje de buena gente, no pudo desarrollar los procedimientos
necesarios para ese trabajo y consider dejar esa lnea de trabajo. En cambio, se contact
con uno de los inmunlogos ms destacados del mundo, Sir Mac Farlane Burnet, quien
haba revolucionado la inmunologa con su teora de seleccin clonal de formacin de
anticuerpos. En respuesta a la carta de Solomon, Sir Mc Farlane Burnet le contest: Soy
casi escptico , pero sus ideas son interesantes. Porqu no viene a Melbourne?
Hablaremos y mi sucesor ,Gus ( ahora Sir Gustav) Nossal le ensear algunas tcnicas
simples para los estudios del stress. Solomon fue a Melbourne donde dice que aprendi
algo sobre inmunologa y mucho sobre los inmunlogos.
En los aos que siguieron, Solomon pudo contar con la colaboracin de colegas
dotados con quienes condujo algunos de los primeros estudios que ahora se encuentran
bajo la rbrica de la psiconeuroinmunologa. Con Thomas Merigan , quien dirigi los
tediosos bioensayos, estudi los efectos del stress y de los esteroides en la produccin de
interferon.25 Usando flagelina, un antgeno bacteriano, se demostr que el manipuleo
durante la vida temprana poda influir sobre las respuestas de anticuerpos primarias y
secundarias subsiguientes en las ratas26 y que diferentes estresores tiene diferentes
afecciones sobre la produccin de anticuerpos18. Tambin desarroll una colaboracin
con el inmunlogo, Alfred Amkraut, al que Solomon describe como bravo, muy
competente , obsesivamente meticuloso y cauteloso. Juntos estudiaron los efectos del
stress en tumores inducidos por virus27, reacciones de injerto vs husped 28, artritis
inducida por adjuvantes 29 y otras reacciones inmunolgicas. Sin embargo, nadie estaba
escuchando. Entre otras cosas, a Alfred no lo nombraron titular (Qu es lo que el
(Sistema nervioso central )(SNC) tiene que ver con la inmunologa?).Entonces, a principio
de los 1970s, Solomon cerr la puerta a esa lnea de investigacin. Diez aos despus ,
iba a volver.
Solomon se mantuvo atento a los desarrollos de la Psiconeuroinmunologa,
especialmente despus de la publicacin del trabajo de Ader & Cohen sobre
condicionamiento. Como se le pidi que contribuyera a la primera edicin de
Psiconeuroinmunologa , l concluy que la PNI (Psiconeuroinmunologa) estaba
finalmente en el mapa y retorn a este campo. Se sospechaba que el SIDA era
infeccioso, que involucraba alguna anormalidad del sistema inmune y que poda afectar
al Sistema nervioso central (SNC) . El SIDA, entonces pareca la condicin ideal a estudiar
dentro del marco de referencia de la Psiconeuroinmunologa. En 1983 Solomon se mud
Ader
Ader
10
Ader
11
Ader
12
Ader
En la actualidad se desconocen los mecanismos neurales, endcrinos, y neuroendcrinos que subyacen las alteraciones condicionadas de la funcin inmune, razn
suficiente, aparentemente para que algunos cientficos biomdicos rechacen el
fenmeno , por s mismo, o en el caso de Nature, para que rechacen la publicacin de un
trabajo que demuestra la potenciacin condicionada de produccin de anticuerpos sin ni
siquiera brindar una crtica. No podemos ms que sorprendernos acerca de las
implicancias de aplicar con uniformidad el criterio de tener que identificar los
mecanismos precisos involucrados en el fenmeno que se est observando con el fin
de publicar los resultados experimentales .Adems del hecho de que no se conocen los
mecanismos precisos que subyacen a los cambios en la funcin inmune inducidos por
conductas , tambin es verdad que solamente en algunas instancias se han determinado
la significacin funcional de los medios de comunicacin bidireccional identificados entre
el sistema nervioso, el endcrino y el inmune .
Con seguridad, nuestros estudios no siempre fueron malditos. Recuerdo, por
ejemplo la tarde que me encontr con Lewis Thomas al cual yo siempre haba
considerado el Montaigne de las ciencias biolgicas, Despus de un breve intercambio de
cortesas, Thomas dijo T s que le ests haciendo la vida difcil a varias personas.
Bueno dije pausadamente, tratando de pensar en la respuesta apropiada:
mientras lea Lewis Thomas, eso no debera preocuparte a ti.
No lo hace, me contest, me encanta!.
Para esa misma poca Hugo Besedovsky comenzaba sus estudios sobre las
interacciones del sistema endcrino e inmune. Besedovsky fue guiado a la
psiconeuroinmunologa a travs de una ruta clnica. Entrenado en Pediatra en la
Facultad Mdica de Rosario, en Argentina, diariamente se encontraba frente a pacientes
con enfermedades infecciosas u otras del sistema inmune. Tempranamente en su
capacitacin haba estado en contacto con la diversidad. l naturalmente consideraba que
el sistema inmune operaba dentro del contexto de otros procesos psicolgicos.
Reflejando su capacitacin como pediatra, sus primeros estudios a principio de los 70 se
dedicaron a las influencias endcrinas sobre los sistemas inmune y hematopoytico
durante la ontogenia58. Se enfoc en la funcin adrenocortical, la cual en esa poca era la
nica actividad endcrina conocida que afectaba la inmunidad. El charl sobre su inters
en la posibilidad de que los mecanismos neuroendcrinos pudieran contribuir a la
inmunoregulacin con el Profesor Bernardo Houssay quien lo alent a trabaja con Sir
Peter Medawar en Londres. Medawar acept pero no pudo acomodar a Besedovsky en su
laboratorio por una enfermedad por lo que Besedovsky se fue a al Instituto de
Investigacin Suizo de Davos, donde tuvo la suerte de tener a Ernst Sorkin como mentor y
colaborador.
La investigacin de Besedovsky sobre la regulacin neuroendcrina de las
respuestas inmunes estaba, y an est, basada en la premisa que las respuestas inmunes
son una parte de los mecanismos homeostticos integrados bajo el control de los
sistemas endcrino y nervioso. Por lo tanto, l razon, debera ser posible brindar
evidencia de que :1) la exposicin al antgeno inicia un flujo de informacin a las
estructuras neuroendcrinas sobre cambios en la actividad de las clulas inmunes; 2)
13
Ader
14
Ader
15
Ader
16
Ader
dudas. En retrospectiva esto era considerado imposible de realizar, una solicitud hecha
por los miembros de la Seccin de Estudio, quienes segn Blalock, ellos mismos nunca
haban secuenciado nada .Sin embargo, como investigadores verdes, a los que tambin
se haca referencia como los brbaros bioqumicos Blalock y sus asociados no saban
bastante como para descorazonarse. Despus de un ao de investigacin y con resultados
prometedores, los miembros de la Seccin de Estudio no se mostraban an
impresionados y cuando Bablock solicit la renovacin de la investigacin, sta fue
desaprobada. Cuando ms adelante fue revisada por cientficos expertos en esa rea,
esta misma propuesta se considero entre el 5% de las ms importantes de todas las
subvenciones que se revisaron en esa poca. Cuando se les dio el tiempo y los recursos
necesarios. Blalock y sus colegas, pudieron secuenciar los pptidos que se encontr eran
autnticos.80 Otros investigadores comenzaron a prestar atencin y el estudio de la
comunicacin entre los sistemas neuro-endcrino e inmune dio un paso gigante. En la
actualidad, se acepta que los pptidos cerebrales y sus receptores existen dentro del
sistema inmune y que los productos de un sistema inmune activado funcionan como
neurotransmisores. De esta forma, los parias cientficos se convirtieron en hroes
(aparentemente, no han recibido an descripciones de estos fenmenos precedidos por la
frase: como esperbamos). Este proceso, a veces agonizante, era motivador e
intelectualmente estimulante, pero, como dice Bablock: la aventura cientfica sera ms
reconfortante si la comunidad cientfica reconociera que la ciencia se trata de un
descubrimiento inesperado, no de resultados esperados.
Otra conexin importantsima entre el cerebro y el sistema inmune fue estudiada
por David Felten. Junto a sus colegas estudi las uniones entre los receptores anatmicos
y neuro qumicos, e hizo que las tcnicas in vitro y in vivo dieran fe de esta relacin a la
vez que brind pruebas inequvocas de que las fibras nerviosas noradrenrgicas
simpticas sealan clulas del sistema inmune y pueden evocar cambios importantes en
su capacidad de respuesta. Nuevamente fue una observacin casual la que cambi la
direccin de la investigacin de Felten.
En 1980, Felten examinaba una seccin de bazo de roedor con histoqumica
fluorescente para que las catecolaminas distinguieran los patrones arteriales y venosos de
la enervacin muscular lisa. Vio e inform de extensas redes de fibras nerviosas
noradrenrgicas simpticas entre las clulas T en la pulpa esplnica, y se sinti
confundido sobre por qu no se haba descripto anteriormente. 81 Felten siempre haba
considerado las interacciones entre los sistemas neuronales de una manera no tradicional.
Desde sus primeras investigaciones en el MIT (Instituto de Tecnologa de Massachusetts),
como no graduado en el laboratorio de Walle J.H. Nauta, le haban fascinado los sistemas
neuronales regulatorios integradores. Su observacin inesperada de las fibras nerviosas
noradrenrgicas simpticas en aparente contacto directo con los linfocitos y macrfagos
cay en tierra frtil. Junto con sus colegas procedi a demostrar que estas fibras nerviosas
estaban localizadas en compartimentos precisos de rganos linfoides primarios (del timo y
de la mdula sea) y secundarios (el bazo y los ndulos linfticos)81-84 y que formaban
uniones apretadas , sinpticas, de efectores neurales con los linfocitos T y los
macrfagos. 85
17
Ader
Felten recuerda que los primeros hallazgos fueron ridiculizados por varios
inmunlogos y considerados con incredulidad como mnimo comoaberraciones
menores. Sin embargo, con una energa y perseverancia caractersticas, junto a sus
colaboradores dedic varios aos a investigar y demostrar que estas fibras nerviosas
noradrenrgicas satisfacan los criterios de la neuro transmisin de las clulas del sistema
inmune con el timo, el bazo, y los ndulos linfticos como objetivo. En un estudio de
desarrollo detallado, demostr que las fibras nerviosas formaban estos contactos
cercanos con los linfocitos tempranamente en la ontogenia, y que parecan influir en el
desarrollo inmunolgico y la compartimentacin temprana. 86 En el otro extremo del ciclo
de vida, encontr que las fibras nerviosas simpticas en los rganos linfoides secundarios
disminuan marcadamente con la edad. 87 Felten propuso que esta prdida contribuye a la
inmunosenescencia (envejecimiento), particularmente con la funciones disminuidas de las
clulas T, especialmente las respuestas deTH1 (con mediacin de clulas). En otros
trabajos ms recientes, el laboratorio de Felten demostr que la desnervacin local de
los nervios simpticos adrenrgicos de los ndulos linfticos drenantes en ratas
susceptibles a enfermedades autoinmunes resaltaba la inflamacin conjunta y la erosin
del hueso en la artritis inducida adjuvante, mientras que la desnervacin selectiva de
fibras nerviosas sustancia P de los ndulos linfticos mencionadas anteriormente
protegan a las ratas de una patologa conjunta. 88 Dichos descubrimientos sustancian la
importancia funcional de los nervios que proveen a los rganos linfoides.
En 1983, Felten obtuvo el prestigioso premio Prize Fellowship de la Fundacin John
D. y Catherine T. MacArthur en una etapa temprana de su trabajo sobre las interacciones
neurales e inmunes. Valga decir, que ste fue uno de los pocos emprendimientos de la
Fundacin dentro del campo de la Psiconeuroinmunologa. Distintas discusiones y
conferencias en los primeros tiempos sostenan la posibilidad de que dicha investigacin
interdisciplinaria y nueva satisfara los criterios originales que apoyaba la fundacin Mc
Arthur: una investigacin innovadora que encontraba dificultades para lograr apoyo
dentro de las entidades federales tradicionales que otorgaban fondos. Quizs, sin
embargo, era demasiado temprano; supuestamente, el concejo recibido de la Fundacin
en aquel momento fue que la Psiconeuroinmunologa no iba a llegar a ningn lado. David
y Susan Felten, sin embargo iban en ese momento al Departamento de Neurobiologa y
Anatoma en la Facultad de Medicina de la Universidad de Rochester para unirse al equipo
de Bob Ader, Nick Cohen y Sandy Livnat para desarrollar programas interdisciplinarios de
investigacin y de capacitacin en investigacin.
Al demostrar el rol principal de las fibras nerviosas noradrenrgicas en la
regulacin de las funciones inmunes, Felten y sus colegas dieron pruebas de esa conexin
directa, soldada entre el sistema nervioso central (SNC) y el sistema inmune. Desde
entonces se ha demostrado que esta conexin es una ruta importante para que las
conductas y las citocinas centrales influyan en la funcin inmune. Para Felten, la
demostracin del sealamiento neural directo de las clulas del sistema inmune abre
direcciones completamente nuevas para la investigacin. Ahora es posible buscar los
mecanismos qumicos y de mediacin de receptores por medio de los cuales se alcanzan
las influencias de las conductas y otras del SNC sobre las respuestas inmunes. Sus colegas
estn en la bsqueda del uso de neurotransmisores agonistas y antagonistas para
18
Ader
19
Ader
20
Ader
21
Ader
22
Ader
relaciones dentro de los sistemas . Y, que los as llamados sistemas son componentes
importantes de una red integrada, nica de mecanismos homeostticos. Estos son temas
importantes en la medida en que los problemas elegidos para su estudio y las estrategias
de investigacin para solucionar estos problemas derivan de posiciones tericas y
conceptuales.
Ms importante an, la investigacin realizada en los ltimos aos, ha resultado en
un reconocimiento y una apreciacin de las interacciones entre los procesos de conducta,
neurales, endcrinos, e inmunes. Por cierto, ha habido un cambio de paradigma en el
intento de a comprender la funcin inmunoregulatoria. La enervacin de los rganos
linfoides y la disponibilidad de los neurotransmisores para las interacciones con clulas
del sistema inmune agregan una nueva dimensin a nuestra comprensin del micro
ambiente en el cual ocurren las respuestas inmunes. De manera similar, la interaccin
entre la pituitaria, el rgano endocrino, y las hormonas derivadas de linfocitos que definen
el medio neuroendcrino en el que ocurren las respuestas inmunes agrega otro nivel de
complejidad al anlisis de las interacciones celulares que dirigen las respuestas inmunes.
En conjunto, estas relaciones brindan la base para las alteraciones en la funcin inmune
inducidas por conductas y observadas anteriormente y para los cambios en la conducta
basados en la inmunologa. Tambin pueden brindar el medio por el cual los factores psico
sociales y los estados emocionales que acompaan la percepcin y la respuesta a
experiencias de vida estresantes influyen en el desarrollo y la progresin de la
enfermedad infecciosa, autoinmune y neoplstica.
23
Ader
Reconocimientos
Estoy muy agradecido a los doctores Hugo Besendovsky, J.Edwin Blalock, John
Hadden, y George Solomon que me brindaron una definicin por escrito sobre sus
perspectivas con respecto a la Psiconeuroinmunologa y por sus comentarios y
correcciones sobre un borrador anterior de este trabajo. Tambin estoy en deuda con el
Dr. Sherman M.Melinkoff, Profesor Emrito de Medicina y anterior Decano de la Facultad
de Medicina de la Universidad de California en Los Angeles (UCLA) por sus reflexiones
personales sobre Fred Rasmussen. Tambin gracias a mis colegas los Doctores Davis Fellen
y Nicholas Cohen que contribuyeron con material para este ensayo. La responsabilidad de
la seleccin de estas perspectivas especficas, la edicin y cualquier error me pertenecen.
La preparacin de trabajo fue apoyada por el Premio al Investigador Cientfico (K05
MH06318) del Instituto Nacional de Salud Mental.
Nota al pie:
* A medida que escribo este captulo, parece evidente que el apoyo financiero para
la investigacin en Psiconeuroinmunologa, a pesar de sus triunfos, enfrentar serias
dificultades durante los prximos aos venideros (pero ese es un captulo diferente.)
24
Ader
25
Ader
26
Ader
Psychoneuroimmunology refers, most simply, to the study of the interactions among behavioral,
neural and endocrine (or neuroendocrine), and immunological processes of adaptation. Its central
premise is that homeostasis is an integrated process involving interactions among the nervous,
endocrine and immune systems. The term was first used in 1980, in my presidential address to
the American Psychosomatic Society.1 Its most conspicuous use was as the title of an edited
volume2 which one reviewer referred to prophetically as The signature volume of a new field of
research. This first volume was an attempt to bring together emerging research suggesting a
relationship between the brain and the immune system. Traditionally, however, the immune
system has been considered an autonomous agency of defense a system of bodily defenses
regulated by cellular interactions that are independent of neural influences. Besides, there were
no known connections between the brain and the immune system. To be sure, it was known that
hormones or, at least, adrenal hormones could influence immunity; some investigators were
aware that brain lesions could influence immune responses; and it was also known or, at least,
suspected that emotional states were associated with the development or progression of diseases
related to the immune system. Few scientists at that time, however, took such observations too
seriously. After all, there were no mechanistic explanations for how such things could happen.
Considering the brief time during which multidisciplinary research has addressed brain-immune
system interactions, a great deal of data has accumulated in support of the proposition that
homeostatic mechanisms are the product of an integrated system of defenses of which the
immune system is one component.3 Autonomic nervous system activity and neuroendocrine
outflow via the pituitary can influence immune function, and cytokines and hormones released by
an activated immune system can influence neural and endocrine processes. Regulatory peptides
and receptors once confined to the brain are expressed by both the nervous and immune systems
and each system is thereby capable of modulating the activities of the other. It is hardly
surprising, then, to find that immunologic reactivity can be modified by Pavlovian conditioning
or that the behavioral and emotional states that accompany the perception of and the effort to
adapt to events in the real world can influence immune responses. Thus, psychoneuroimmunology
successfully challenged the commonly held assumption of an autonomous immune system. One
may, therefore, entertain the proposition that changes in immune function mediate the effects of
psychosocial factors and stressful life experiences on the susceptibility to and/or the precipitation
or progression of some disease processes.
It is not my intent, in this introductory chapter, to review the literature outlining the history of
psychoneuroimmunology. I have, instead, taken my charge literally and chosen the more
manageable task of presenting here some editorial comments and some historical perspectives on
psychoneuroimmunology. These are, of necessity, brief and selected and only cover
developments up until about 1980. Very much more could be written about the people and the
findings described here because these are rich personal stories. Much more could also be written
about what was contemporary and what came before and what came after the 1970s, but this is a
chapter not a book. The research I have chosen to highlight was not necessarily even the first
27
Ader
of its kind; in my opinion, however, the systematic research initiated during the 1970s was the
right stuff at the right time. No one study can be said to have been (or could have been)
responsible for psychoneuroimmunology. I suspect that none of the research initiatives described
below would have had quite the same impact had it not been for the converging evidence of
brain-immune system interactions being provided by the others at about the same time. Studies
of brain-immune system relationships had been appearing in the literature for many, many years.
However, it was the coalescence of research initiated during the 1970s and sustained thereafter
and the identity provided by the label, psychoneuroimmunology, itself that reawakened
longstanding interests and attracted new investigators into this new field.
The notion of integration is neither new nor, for the most part, can it be considered controversial.
It was David Hamburg, I think, who pointed out that biochemistry, a hybrid discipline, was initially
viewed as a combination of poor biology and weak chemistry. Today, it is basic and central to the
study of medicine. Psychopharmacology is a recognition of the fact that drug effects depend to a
large extent on the state of the organism into whom they are introduced. Neuroendocrinology
reflects an appreciation of the fact that the functions of the endocrine system can not be fully
understood without reference to its interactions with the nervous system. And
psychoneuroendocrinology acknowledges that the feedback and feedforward pathways between
these systems influence and are influenced by behavior. Hybrid disciplines are not always or
solely attempts at integration or synthesis. Basic fields such as neurochemistry or
immunopharmacology, and clinical subspecialties such as neuropsychiatry, for example, designate
a focus within a parent discipline. In fact, in keeping with the zeitgeist of the biomedical model,
the latter reductionistic referent is probably the more common one.
Among other shortcomings, disciplinary boundaries tend to keep insiders in and outsiders out.
Hybrid disciplines have nevertheless emerged and significantly extended our understanding of the
functions of the components of interacting systems. Why is it, then, that
psychoneuroimmunology precipitated and, in some circles, continues to engender so much
resistance and enmity? Certainly, the attention that psychoneuroimmunology has captured in the
popular press and its exploitation by those who redefine and use psychoneuroimmunology as the
scientific umbrella for their own undisciplined and untested theories and practices cannot have
endeared psychoneuroimmunology or investigators who study brainimmune system interactions
to the remainder of the scientific community. In my unsubstantiated view, however, the reasons
lie as much within as without the biomedical community. Some scientists are willing to say they
dont believe theres anything of substance in psychoneuroimmunology, although they are not
necessarily willing to be quoted. Of course, scientists do not have recourse to I dont believe it
as grounds for rejecting hypotheses. One can argue, I dont believe it because... as in: I dont
believe it because there are no connections between the brain and the immune system. Such
arguments are capable of disproof and, with respect to psychoneuroimmunology, all such
arguments have been contradicted by experimental data. Unfortunately for the development of
the field, however, there are those in influential positions who, purportedly, believed that
psychoneuroimmunology would go nowhere and acted in a consultative capacity on this belief.
28
Ader
There is, too, a sense of unease among some so-called hard scientists who seem to view the
scientific study of behavior as an oxymoron. In truth, the sophistication in experimental design
and analysis of research by the behavioral sciences far exceeds that of the more classical
biomedical sciences and even molecular biology, and is essential for addressing the quantitative
questions (e.g., when, how much, under what conditions) that are raised by factoring behavioral,
neural and endocrine variables into the experimental analysis of immunoregulatory processes.
Within the field, there have been some minor battles over turf, but none has altered the
defining theme of the field. The emergence of psychoneuroimmunology has actually broadened
some fields of study that were more narrowly defined in the recent past (e.g., papers in
psychoneuroimmunology are now solicited for publication in the Journal of Neuroimmunology).
Neuroimmunomodulation and neuroendocrinimmunology, mere mispronunciations of
psychoneuroimmunology, seem to have been precipitated to disengage from the study of
behavior and/or to more specifically brand the field with ones own personal or disciplinary irons.
Neither label changed the substance of the interdisciplinary research it promoted. (Of course, if
you can come up with still another name, you, too, can also come up with another First
Conference on....)
The first sustained program of research were the studies of Russian investigators on the classical
conditioning of immune responses. This research, derived from a Pavlovian perspective, began
with Metalnikoff and Chorine4 who were working at the Pasteur Institute in Paris. This research
was reviewed in English in 1933 by no less than Clark Hull,5 a renowned learning theorist of that
era. It was also reviewed in 1933 and, again, in 1941 by Kopeloff.6,7 The only other substantive
review of this literature in English appeared in Psychoneuroimmunology.8 None of these early
reviews attracted much attention or had any impact on research outside the then Soviet Union,
including the studies of brain lesions on immune reactions and the physiologic studies of stress
derived from the work of Hans Selye. Even the research implicating the nervous system in the
modulation of immune responses initiated by Rasmussen and his colleagues and others in the
1950s and 60s failed to attract much sustained attention from any but a few behavioral scientists.
Aaron Frederick Rasmussen, Jr. was certainly one of the earliest pioneers of
psychoneuroimmunology. His association with Norman Brill, then Chair of the Department of
Psychiatry at the UCLA School of Medicine, was probably the first collaboration between a
microbiologist/immunologist and a behavioral scientist. Rasmussen died in 1984, at the age of 68,
after serving as Chair of the Department of Medical Microbiology and Immunology (1962-1969)
and thereafter as Associate Dean of the School of Medicine. He is remembered as a beloved and
inspiring teacher and colleague and an outstanding virologist whose genetic studies laid the
foundation for understanding the notorious worldwide variability in influenza viruses. Rasmussen
was a meticulous experimental microbiologist, who, at the same time, never lost site of host
factors in disease. He was intrigued by the unproved conventional wisdom that emotional states
influence the course of infectious illness, as depicted by such great novelists as Thomas Mann and
as observed by such great pre-modern clinicians as Sir William Osler. An integrative thinker not
29
Ader
bound by disciplinary lines, Rasmussen sought out Brill to discuss his psychomicrobiological
ideas.
In 1957, Rasmussen, Marsh and Brill demonstrated that a stressful experience, avoidance
conditioning, could increase the susceptibility of mice to herpes simplex virus. In a series of
landmark papers, the pathogenic effect of emotional stress on animals exposed to herpes virus,9
Coxsackie B virus,10 and vesicular stomatitis virus11 was explored. He and his coworkers also
found decreased susceptibility to poliomyelitis virus in stressed monkeys, an early demonstration
of the variability in stress effects on disease susceptibility.12 Anticipating modern work in psychooncology as well as psychoneuroimmunology, Rasmussen and his colleagues also found that stress
influenced the malignancy of polyoma virus in mice,13 and his later work on stress included
measures of viral antibodies and interferon production.14,15 I regret very much that I never met
Fred Rasmussen. His research set the stage for a variety of studies dealing with stress and
infection, such as those initiated by Friedman, Glasgow and Ader,16,17 and Solomons studies on
stress and antibody responses to a novel bacterial antigen.18 (It may not be scientifically
noteworthy, but it is of personal interest that my colleague, Nicholas Cohen, was a postdoctoral
student in Rasmussens department at UCLA in the mid 1960s. Unfortunately, Rasmussens
involvement in this research was decreasing which may explain why it took Cohen so long to enter
the field.)
George Solomon was another of the early investigators to show that psychological or
environmental stressors could influence immunity. He and his colleague, Rudolf Moos, made
painstaking observations of the life histories and personality characteristics of patients, seeking a
clue to the frequently observed association between emotional states and the onset or
exacerbation of arthritis. Solomon described the area as psychoimmunology and, despite the
concerns of some of his colleagues, hung a sign to that effect on his laboratory door. In
retrospect, Solomons perspective on psychoneuroimmunology derived from curiosity,
serendipity, psychodynamics, and the organization of disparate observations. Equally important,
he claims, is the role of tenacity, frustration tolerance, and the ability to accept the
encouragement of some and to reject the negativism of others in the development of new
observations and theories.
Initially, Solomon was interested in psychological factors in the onset and course of autoimmune
disease.19 This interest was instigated by his father, a psychiatrist, who was convinced that
psychological factors played a role in the onset and course of rheumatoid arthritis. As a resident in
psychiatry at the Langley Porter Institute, he and W. Jeffrey Fessel studied patients with systemic
lupus erythematosus (SLE) who had severe psychiatric symptoms. The similarity of the symptoms
in SLE to the symptoms seen in schizophrenia, prompted Solomon to ask whether schizophrenia
could be an autoimmune disease of the brain with genetic and psychological predisposing factors
that could be influenced by stressful life experiences. After a stint in the army, Solomon returned
to the University of California in San Francisco and to research on immunoglobulins and
schizophrenia.20
30
Ader
He also joined forces and established a productive collaboration with Rudolf Moos, a psychologist,
who was studying psychosocial factors in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Solomon and Moos later
joined the Department of Psychiatry at Stanford, but continued to do their research at UCSF; at
Stanford, they encountered difficulties in obtaining access to arthritic patients for such
psychological nonsense. The most unusual study in their series of papers on rheumatoid
arthritis21 was the one comparing physically healthy relatives of RA patients (known to have a
greater than average likelihood of developing autoimmune disease) with the RA patients
themselves with the additional consideration of whether or not their sera contained
rheumatoid factor, an anti IgG antibody characteristic of rheumatoid arthritis. Neither subjects
nor examiners knew the sera status of the study population. Those who were negative for the
rheumatoid factor were like a general population: normally distributed from psychologically
healthy to psychologically disturbed. However, rheumatoid factor positive relatives of RA patients
were psychologically healthy, lacking anxiety, depression, or alienation and reporting good
relationships with spouses, friends, and relatives. Psychological well-being seemed to exert a
protective influence in the face of a probable genetic predisposition to autoimmune disease.
The future, Solomon thought, lay in mechanistic studies and, whats more, he saw an opening.
In 1963, he read a paper by Robert Good22 who postulated a relationship between autoimmunity
and relative immunologic incompetence. Frank Dixon23 related such incompetence to the
pathogenic formation of antigenantibody complexes which occur when the amount of antibody is
low in relation to antigen. Solomon immediately strung together: immunologic incompetence,
adrenocorticosteroid hormones and immunosuppression with stress and corticosteroids. A naive
and simplistic notion, he thought, but a heuristic one, nonetheless. These notions were presented
in Emotions, immunity, and disease:
A speculative theoretical integration published in 1964.24 Solomon attempted to conscript Moos
into developing a laboratory in which they could stress rodents. After all, no one, he thought,
was going to believe clinical data, but they will be convinced by animal experiments. Moos,
however, was not an experimentalist and chose to pursue other interests, so Solomon was on his
own. He was provided with a laboratory, but he recognized that he knew virtually no immunology.
Practically all the immunologists with whom he spoke told him that the immune system was
autonomous, totally self-regulatory, and, thus, not subject to neuroendocrine influences.
Nevertheless, Solomon established his psychoimmunology laboratory. Although he had the
support and tutelage of good people, he was unable to develop the necessary assay procedures
for this work and considered giving up this line of research. Instead, he contacted one of the most
noted immunologists in the world, Sir MacFarlane Burnet, who had revolutionized immunology
with his clonal-selection theory of antibody formation. In response to Solomons letter, Sir
MacFarlane Burnet replied: I am most skeptical, but your ideas are interesting. Why dont you
come to Melbourne? Well talk, and my successor, Gus (now Sir Gustav) Nossal will teach you
simple techniques for stress studies. Solomon did go to Melbourne where he claims he learned
something about immunology and a great deal about immunologists.
31
Ader
In the ensuing years, Solomon was able to enlist the collaboration of gifted colleagues with whom
he conducted some of the first studies that now fall under the rubric of
psychoneuroimmunology. With Thomas Merigan, who ran the tedious bioassay, he studied the
effects of stress and steroids on interferon production.25 Using flagellin, a bacterial antigen, it
was shown that handling during early life could influence subsequent primary and secondary
antibody responses in rats,26 and that different stressors have different affects on antibody
production.18 He also developed a collaboration with an immunologist, Alfred Amkraut, whom
Solomon describes as brave, most competent, obsessively meticulous, and cautious. Solomon
and Amkraut studied the effects of stress on virus-induced tumors,27 graft-vs-host reactions,28
adjuvant-induced arthritis,29 and other immunologic reactions. Nobody, however, was
listening. Among other things, Alfred was not given tenure (What does the CNS have to do with
immunology?). Thus, in the early 1970s, Solomon closed the door on this line of research. Ten
years later, however, he was to return.
Solomon kept close watch on the developments in psychoneuroimmunology,
...especially after the publication of Ader and Cohens conditioning work. Having been asked to
contribute to the first edition of Psychoneuroimmunology, he concluded that PNI was on the map
at last, and returned to the field. AIDS was suspected of being infectious, it involved immune
abnormality, and it could also affect the CNS. AIDS, then, seemed the ideal condition to study
within a psychoneuroimmunologic frame of reference. In 1983, Solomon moved from Fresno to
the home campus of the University of California in San Francisco to join the incipient
biopsychosocial AIDS project designed to seek psychologicimmunologic (AIDS progression)
correlations. There he pursued his longstanding interest in exceptions to the rule, namely longterm survivors with AIDS from whom he felt one might learn what psychological factors and
mediating mechanisms contributed to health and longevity. Their informally studied group of
long-term survivors were remarkable people.30 One of these was singer Michael Callen who
wrote about the study in his book, Surviving AIDS. Callen, who died in 1994 after 12 years of
symptomatic AIDS, personified what Solomon was attempting to explain. Another personal
encounter that colored Solomons perspective on psychoneuroimmunology was his association
with Norman Cousins. It was Cousins interest in understanding the role of attitude in healing that
led L.J. (Jolly) West, then Chair of the Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, to
invite Solomon to join the faculty at the University of California in Los Angeles. Cousins founded a
UCLA Task Force on Psychoneuroimmunology of which Solomon is still a member. In addition to
continuing work on AIDS, Solomon is currently engaged in some psychologically upper research:
research on very healthy old people instead of sick young people.
One of the channels of communication between the neuroendocrine and immune systems is
achieved through the receptors that exist on immune cells. John Hadden was prompted to ask if
lymphocytes had adrenergic receptors by the emergence of adenylate cyclase as the beta receptor
transduction unit in many tissues and, most specifically, by The beta adrenergic theory of the
atopic abnormality in bronchial asthma proposed by Ando Szentivanyi.31 Based on studies in
guinea pigs of the effects of hypothalamic lesions and stimulation on anaphylactic responses,32,33
32
Ader
the first of such studies on brain lesions and immune reaction, Szentivanyi suggested that the CNS
had an impact on the immune system, at least in terms of allergic mechanisms. He further
postulated a blockade of beta adrenergic receptors, with a resulting exaggeration of immune
responses, as a cause of asthma. That is, it was hypothesized that beta adrenergic receptors
acting via the adenylate cyclase/cyclic AMP system would down regulate allergic immune
phenomena.
It was during his first year of a medical fellowship with Elliot Middleton, Jr. that Hadden learned of
Szentivanyis formulation and set out to determine if lymphocytes had adrenergic receptors that
could regulate immune function in a meaningful way. Hadden and his associates showed that, in
the presence of hydrocortisone, alpha-adrenergic stimulation augmented and beta adrenergic
stimulation inhibited the lymphoproliferative response to the mitogen, PHA.34 This was the first
observation linking lymphocytes to the sympathetic nervous system, opening a wide door to the
study of neural influences on immunity.
These findings led Hadden in several directions. The notion that beta antagonists and cyclic AMP
down-regulated lymphocyte proliferation was pursued by several investigators and confirmed for
a variety of lymphocyte functions.35 Hadden and his associates elaborated on the newly detected
alpha adrenergic effects as these related to glucose metabolism and transmembrane K+ transport,
finally linking them to direct effects on membrane ATPases of lymphocytes.36-38 While working
in Minneapolis on transmembrane signaling, Hadden was introduced to cyclic GMP by Nelson
Goldberg. Together, they found that cyclic GMP was involved in the signal induced in lymphocytes
by PHA.39 They also found that cyclic GMP was involved in lymphocyte cholinergic responses.
While in the process of developing these observations, Terry Strom presented the first paper to
show that T lymphocyte cytotoxicity was augmented by muscarinic cholinergic stimulation.40
Hadden and his associates extended these results, demonstrating stimulation of RNA and DNA
synthesis of lymphocytes and implicating cyclic GMP in the process.41,42 These observations
were the first to link lymphocytes to the parasympathetic nervous system, opening a door to
immune regulation by the entire autonomic nervous system.
Hadden initiated some additional in vivo studies, but became allergic to the animals and had to
abandon this line of research. Besides, he was then preoccupied with questions about signal
transduction mechanisms. He was not unmindful and, indeed, was fascinated by Robert Goods
stories about his personal involvement in successful demonstrations of hypnotically-induced
alterations of immunity,43 but it appeared to him that the study of the neural modulation of
immunity was not yet ready to surface as a bona fide area of research. Yet, it was in 1980 that
Hadden, instrumental in the organization of the new International Conferences on
Immunopharmacology and starting a new journal, the International Journal of
Immunopharmacology, invited me to present at this immunology meeting. It was important, he
thought, that the immunopharmacologist be made aware of the research and the implications of
the work on conditioning and immunity. Now, 25 years later, Hadden writes, I recognize that it
has emerged and I am happy to have contributed some impetus. As evidenced by recent work on
33
Ader
34
Ader
People listened politely, but I did not have much luck in generating any interest in this hypothesis
let alone the help I would need to examine it until I met Nicholas Cohen. Cohen was the first
person with sophistication in immunology who didnt think these notions were too far out.
Thus began a collaboration that is as active today as it was in 1974. Still oblivious of the Russian
studies of the 1920s, Cohen and I designed a study to directly examine the hypothesis that
immune responses could be modified by classical conditioning. For better or worse (sometimes,
were not sure), the first experimental paradigm we adopted was successful and, with some
evident trepidation on the part of the reviewers and editor, Behaviorally conditioned
immunosuppression was published in 1975.47 This study demonstrated that, like other
physiological processes, the immune system was subject to classical (Pavlovian) conditioning,
providing dramatic evidence of an inextricable relationship between the brain and the immune
system. Essentially, we were forced to the conclusion that there was a relationship between the
brain and the immune system. The biomedical community, however, was, to be generous,
guarded and, to be precise, quite negative. Such a phenomenon simply could not occur
because, as everybody knew, there were no connections between the brain and the immune
system. Seminar groups were assigned the (unsuccessful) task of finding out what we had done
wrong. The first replication of our findings48 came from a study originally intended to show that,
taking appropriate care and using more accurate assay procedures, the effect would not occur.
The National Institutes of Health and National Institute of Mental Health, however, were not
forced to the conclusion that one could condition alterations in immunologic reactivity, and,
notwithstanding George Engels predictions, Study Sections were loathe to use my conservative
reputation as collateral. However, reading between the lines of pink sheets (and as confirmed
by Study Section members much later), we might be right and could they take that chance for
so little money and for only two years at a time? Our initial study was supported by a one-year
grant from the Grant Foundation (where my reputation was collateral) and then, reluctantly, it
seems, we were funded by the NIH. At that time, ours was the only NIH grant in this area which,
on renewal, was thereafter supported by the NIMH. Today, a computer search of
psychoneuroimmunology and neuroimmunomodulation lists more than 200 active research
grants being supported by the U.S. Public Health Service.* Over the next several years, there
were replications and major extensions of conditioned alterations of humoral and cell-mediated
immune responses.49-51 Recent work has successfully used antigen, itself, as the unconditioned
stimulus. A classically conditioned enhancement of antibody production occurred when
conditioned mice were reexposed to the conditioned stimulus in the context of reexposure to a
minimally immunogenic dose of that same antigen.52 These and earlier experiments53
documented the conditioning of immune responses, per se, in contrast to the conditioning of
immunopharmacologic responses. Studies in New Zealand mice genetically susceptible to a
systemic lupus erythematosus-like disease were used to demonstrate the biologic impact of
conditioned alterations in immune responses. Substituting CSs for active drug on some scheduled
treatment days delayed the onset of autoimmune disease using a cumulative amount of
immunosuppressive drug that was ineffective by itself in altering the progression of disease.54
Similarly, reexposure to a CS previously paired with immunosuppressive drug treatment prolonged
the survival of foreign tissue grafted onto mice.55,56 Such results have yet to be verified in
35
Ader
human patients. However, there has been one clinical case study describing the successful use of
conditioning in reducing by one half the amount of cytoxan therapy received by a child with
lupus.57
To date, the neural, endocrine, or neuroendocrine mechanisms underlying conditioned
alterations in immune function are unknown reason enough, apparently, for some biomedical
scientists to reject the phenomenon, itself, or, in the case of Nature, to reject for publication a
paper demonstrating conditioned enhancement of antibody production without even providing a
review. One can only wonder about the implications of applying uniformly the criterion of having
to identify ...the precise mechanisms involved in the phenomenon you observe... in order to
publish experimental results. Besides the fact that the precise mechanisms underlying
behaviorally-induced changes in immune function are not known, it is also true that in only a few
instances has the functional significance of the bidirectional communication pathways that have
been identified among the nervous, endocrine and immune systems been determined.
To be sure, our studies were not always maligned. I recall, for example, the evening I met Lewis
Thomas whom I have always thought of as the Montaigne of the biological sciences. After a brief
exchange of pleasantries, Thomas said, You sure are making life difficult for some people.
Well, I answered, slowly trying to think of an appropriate response, as I read Lewis Thomas,
that shouldnt bother you.
It doesnt, he replied, I love it!
During these same years, Hugo Besedovsky was beginning his studies on endocrine-immune
system interactions. Besedovsky was led into psychoneuroimmunology through a clinical route.
Trained as a pediatrician at the Medical Faculty of Rosario in Argentina, he was confronted daily
with patients with infectious and other diseases involving the immune system. Having been
hybridized early in his training, Besedovsky naturally viewed the immune system as operating
within the context of other physiological processes. Reflecting his pediatric training, his first
studies in the early 1970s addressed endocrine influences on the immune and haematopoietic
systems during ontogeny.58 He focused on adrenocortical function which, at the time, was the
only endocrine activity known to affect immunity. He discussed his interest in the possibility that
neuroendocrine mechanisms could contribute to immunoregulation with Professor Bernardo
Houssay who encouraged him to work with Sir Peter Medawar in London. Medawar accepted but
then could not accommodate Besedovsky in his laboratory because of illness, so he went to the
Swiss Research Institute in Davos, Switzerland where he was fortunate to have Ernst Sorkin as a
mentor and collaborator.
Besedovskys research on the neuroendocrine regulation of immune responses was, and still is,
based on the premise that immune responses are a part of integrated homeostatic mechanisms
under the control of the nervous and endocrine systems. Thus, he reasoned, it should be possible
to provide evidence that: (1) antigen exposure initiates a flow of information to neuroendocrine
structures about changes in the activity of immune cells; (2) as a consequence of this information,
36
Ader
an efferent neuroendocrine response should be elicited; and (3) this efferent response should
have functional significance for immunoregulatory processes and host defenses.
Besedovsky and his colleagues proceeded to demonstrate in two animal species that,
independent of any stress-induced responses related to the procedures, immunization with
different antigens was capable of inducing endocrine changes (an increase in corticosterone and a
decrease in thyroxin) that were under CNS control.59 This was followed by a collaboration with
Professor Dominik Felix from the Brain Research Institute in Zurich which established that there
was, in parallel with the production of antibody, an increase in the firing rate of neurons within the
ventromedial hypothalamus.60,61 This was a dramatic demonstration that the nervous system is
capable of responding to signals emitted by an immune response. These results, Besedovsky
recalls, were first submitted to Nature which rejected the paper because it is self evident that the
brain must receive information from the immune system.
Hugo Besedovskys professional and personal relationship with Adriana del
Rey, also from Argentina, began when she joined the Institute in Davos in 1977. Their first
collaborative research concerned antigenic competition and the immunosuppressive role of
elevations in adrenocortical steroids.62 These studies supported their hypothesis that
glucocorticoid elevations associated with antigen exposure act to prevent an abnormal expansion
of the immune response which might otherwise result in a cumulative, excessive immune cell
proliferation favoring the expression of autoimmune and lymphoproliferative processes and the
production of potentially harmful products of activated lymphocytes.
Analogous experiments on the involvement of the sympathetic nervous system in
immunoregulation included the measurement of the content and the turnover rate of splenic
noradrenaline during an immune response. In highly reactive animals, there is a decrease in
noradrenaline content which occurs before the peak in antibody titers;63,64 animals that have a
less active immune system show an increase in noradrenaline in lymphoid organs.65 Also,
corresponding to the increased activity of hypothalamic neurons during an immune response,
Besedovsky and his associates66 showed that there was a reduction in the noradrenaline turnover
rate in the hypothalamus and brain stem. Clearly, there was a very dynamic interaction between
the immune system and the sympathetic nervous system that influenced immunoregulatory
processes.
The fact that there were endocrine, autonomic and neural activity changes during the course of
immune responses indicated that the immune system could convey information to the CNS which
led Besedovsky to suggest that the immune system acts as a receptor sensorial organ.60,66 This
implies that the CNS can sense the activity of the peripheral immune system involved in the
recognition of non-self intruders and modified self-components, as well. If so, the products of
immune cells should be able to affect neuroendocrine function. His approach involved stimulating
immune cells in vitro and transferring the supernatants obtained from such cultures into naive
animals. The culture supernatants induced a pituitary-dependent increase in plasma
corticosterone and a decrease in the content of noradrenaline in the brain of the rats.67,68 Thus,
37
Ader
Besedovsky provided the first evidence that products of activated immune cells could affect
endocrine responses that were under CNS control. When purified lymphokines and monokines
became available in the 1980s, the laboratory began to study the capacity of these immune
system mediators (e.g., interleukin-1) to influence neuroendocrine functions.69,70 Current
research focuses on the effects of endogenously produced lymphokines and monokines.
Current research also includes a concern for the potential clinical relevance of neuroendocrineimmune system interactions. For example, some of the endocrine changes effected by the
inoculation of tumor cells are mediated by cytokines rather than being a direct result of the tumor,
itself, or the ensuing disease.71 Also, the pituitary-adrenal response to lipopolysaccharide is
cytokine mediated72 and IL-1 is a main factor in activation of the pituitary-adrenal axis during viral
infections.73
The innovative research initiated by Hugo Besedovsky, Adriana del Rey and their colleagues has
had a major impact on the acceptance of an integrated approach to research on homeostatic
processes, in general, and on psychoneuroimmunology, in particular. It has also had a major
impact on the conceptualizations and on the directions of research coming from several
laboratories in the United States and in Europe. That, however, took time. Initially, the response
to their work, like the response experienced by others in the field, was disheartening. On one of
their several trips from Davos to Basel, Besedovsky and del Rey met with Niels Jerne, then Director
of the Institute of Immunology, to discuss their ideas about the role of hormones and
neurotransmitters in immunoregulation with a world famous immunologist whom they admired
greatly.
Jerne listened and said, This is too complicated. We still do not know many things about the
immune system, and I think we should know, for example, whether there is a T cell receptor.
Maybe you should work in vitro... Needless to say, this was an unexpected and upsetting
response. About five years later, Besedovsky was giving a seminar at the Hoffman-LaRoche
Laboratories where the first person to arrive was Neils Jerne. Following Besedovskys talk on the
immunomodulating effects of glucocorticoids, Jerne stood up and said that I have always believed
that there is a communication between the immune and endocrine systems and ...
Adriana del Rey, sitting near Jerne, interrupted him and shouted: This is not true! Five years ago
you told us...(and she repeated the story).
Of course, Jerne laughed and said, Well, what I meant to say was that I have always believed it
but, after seeing these results, I think it may be true! (Parenthetically, Nicholas Cohen, who had
spent a sabbatical year at the Basel Institute in 1975, was invited to review our work on
conditioning for a 1981 volume74 honoring Neils Jerne.)
Besedovsky is now Professor of Physiology in the Medical Faculty of the University of Marburg in
Germany where he has established a Department of Immunophysiology. The multidisciplinary
expertise of his research group is still devoted to investigations of the complex immune-neuroendocrine interactions that characterize the physiology of the immune system.
38
Ader
Similar thinking was directing the research of Edwin Blalock when, in 1979, lymphocytes were
discovered to be a source of brain peptide neurotransmitters and pituitary hormones.75 These
observations were the unexpected culmination of three years of research when, as an Assistant
Professor of Microbiology at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston, Blalock started
out to determine if the cytokine, interferon (IFN), could function as a hormone. Indeed, it
appeared that, among its other endocrine activities, interferon preparations could stimulate the
adrenal to synthesize glucocorticoids.76 Since the sequences of IFN were not known at the time
and IFN was functioning like ACTH, the primary regulator of the adrenal gland, Blalock and his first
postdoctoral fellow, Eric Smith, wondered whether the steroidogenic activity of the cytokine
might be due to the presence of a residue ACTH-like sequence within the IFN molecule. Although
this appeared to be so,75 further studies, including the cloning of IFN, showed that this was not
the case.77 But, this research led to an even more remarkable finding: supernatant fluids from
human lymphocytes cultured with IFN contained ACTH and the endogenous opioid peptides,
endorphins.77 _Blalock remembers quite vividly the exhilaration they felt on the day they first
observed immunofluorescent pictures of lymphocytes staining positively for the production of
these substances. Such observations were indeed surprising since, at the time, these peptides
were thought to be the exclusive property of the brain and pituitary gland. For Blalock and for
many others in the developing field of psychoneuroimmunology this discovery suggested a
molecular approach for solving the mystery of how the mind could control the immune system,
e.g., how classical conditioning might modify immunity. Such a relationship could exist because
the bodys two principle recognition organs, the brain and the immune system, speak the same
chemical language. If true, this meant that the immune system could, indeed, talk back to the
brain and, perhaps, alter physiology and behavior. Research accomplished in the last several years
confirms the fact that such relationships do, in fact, exist78,79 and, because of the molecular and
biochemical nature of these studies a large measure of respectability was given to
psychoneuroimmunology but, not immediately.
As with most, if not all discoveries that challenge current dogma, Blalocks work was met with
healthy as well as unhealthy skepticism and, like many pioneers in the field of
psychoneuroimmunology, the messengers suffered personal and professional indignities. The NIH
site visitors reviewing their first research grant proposal in this area concluded that Blalock and his
colleagues were actually sane and that the work had merit, but the project was funded for only
two years. According to Blalock, the study sections message was clear: you must sequence the
lymphocytes ACTH to make your point unequivocally. In retrospect, this was considered an
impossible request made by Study Section members who, according to Blalock, had never,
themselves, sequenced anything. However, as green investigators, who were also referred to as
biochemical yahoos, Blalock and his associates did not know enough to be daunted. After a
year of research and encouraging results, the Study Section members were still unimpressed and
Blalocks application for renewal of this research was disapproved. When later reviewed by
scientists knowledgeable in the area, this very same proposal was judged to be in the top 5% of all
the grants reviewed at that time. Given the time and resources, Blalock and his colleagues were
able to sequence the peptides which were found to be authentic.80 Other investigators began to
39
Ader
pay attention and the study of neuroendocrine-immune system communication took another
giant step. Today, it is accepted that brain peptides and their receptors exist within the immune
system and that the products of an activated immune system function as neurotransmitters. Thus,
the scientific pariahs became heroes (apparently, they have not yet experienced unreferenced
descriptions of these phenomena prefaced by the phrase, As we have long expected). The
process, agonizing at times, was rewarding and intellectually stimulating, but, as Blalock puts it:
the scientific enterprise would be more enjoyable if the scientific community recognized that
science is about unexpected discovery, not expected results.
Another critical link between the brain and the immune system was forged by David Felten. He
and his colleagues brought anatomical, neurochemical, receptorbinding, and in vitro and in vivo
immunological techniques to bear on this relationship and provided unequivocal evidence that
sympathetic noradrenergic nerve fibers signal cells of the immune system and are capable of
evoking major changes in their responsiveness. Again, it was a serendipitous observation that
altered the direction of Feltens research.
In 1980, Felten was examining a section of rodent spleen with fluorescence histochemistry for
catecholamines to distinguish arterial and venous patterns of smooth muscle innervation. He saw
and reported extensive networks of noradrenergic sympathetic nerve fibers among T cells in the
white pulp, and was confused about why this had not been described in the past.81 Felten had
always looked at interactions among neuronal systems in a non-traditional fashion. From his early
work at MIT as an undergraduate in Walle J.H. Nautas laboratory, he was fascinated with
integrative regulatory neuronal systems. His unexpected observation of sympathetic
noradrenergic nerve fibers in apparent direct contact with lymphocytes and macrophages thus fell
on fertile ground. He and his colleagues proceeded to show that these nerve fibers were localized
in precise compartments of both primary (thymus, bone marrow) and secondary (spleen, lymph
nodes) lymphoid organs,81-84 and formed close, synaptic-like neuroeffector junctions with T
lymphocytes and macrophages.85
Felten recalls that his early findings were ridiculed by many immunologists and viewed with
disbelief as minor aberrations, at best. However, with characteristic energy and persistence, he
and his collaborators spent several years investigating and demonstrating that these
noradrenergic nerve fibers fulfilled the criteria for neurotransmission with cells of the immune
system with thymus, spleen, and lymph nodes as targets. In a detailed developmental study, it
was shown that these nerve fibers formed these close contacts with lymphocytes early in
ontogeny, and appeared to influence early immunological development and compartmentation.86
At the other end of the lifespan, sympathetic nerve fibers in secondary lymphoid organs were
found to diminish markedly with age.87 Felten has proposed that this loss contributes to
immunosenescence, particularly to diminished T cell functions, especially TH1 (cell-mediated)
responses. In other recent work, Feltens laboratory demonstrated that local denervation of
adrenergic sympathetic nerves from draining lymph nodes in autoimmune disease-susceptible rats
enhanced joint inflammation and bone erosion in adjuvant-induced arthritis, while selective
denervation of substance P nerve fibers from such draining lymph nodes protected the rats from
40
Ader
joint pathology.88 Such findings substantiate the functional importance of nerves supplying
lymphoid organs.
In 1983, Felten was awarded a prestigious John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Prize
Fellowship at the early stage of his work in neuralimmune interactions. Parenthetically, this was
one of the Foundations few ventures into psychoneuroimmunology. Several discussions and
conferences in the early days held out the prospect that such new, interdisciplinary research
would meet the original criteria for MacArthur Foundation support: innovative research that
would face difficulties in finding support from within traditional federal funding agencies.
Perhaps, however, it was too soon; purportedly, the advice received by the Foundation at that
time was that psychoneuroimmunology wasnt going anywhere. David and Suzanne Felten,
however, were going to the Department of Neurobiology and Anatomy at the University of
Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry to team up with Bob Ader, Nick Cohen and Sandy
Livnat to develop interdisciplinary programs of research and research training.
In demonstrating a major role for sympathetic noradrenergic nerve fibers in regulating immune
functions, Felten and his colleagues provided evidence for a direct, hard-wired connection
between the CNS and the immune system. This connection has since been shown to be a major
route for behavioral influences and for central cytokine influences on immune function. For
Felten, the demonstration of direct neural signaling of cells of the immune system opens up
several completely new directions for research. It is now possible to seek the chemical and
receptor-mediated mechanisms by which behavioral and other CNS influences on immune
responses are achieved. He and his colleagues are pursuing the use of neurotransmitter agonists
and antagonists to specifically manipulate sites of initiation of immune responses, development
and regulation of effector cell functions, and modulation of effector cell functions at diverse sites.
Feltens work is a cornerstone of a mechanistic understanding of the signaling between the
nervous and immune systems and provides a basis for understanding the complex systemic
integration among behavioral processes, the brain, and immunophysiology.
Thus, it was during the 1970s and early 80s that independent lines of research, derived as much
from the personal experiences and imagination of the investigators as from a logic dictated by
different disciplinary perspectives, began converging on the theme that the immune system was
part of a larger, integrated mechanism of homeostatic processes serving the survival interests of
the individual. For whatever reasons and despite overt and covert resistance this was
evidently the right stuff at the right time! A new picture of immunoregulatory processes was
emerging that promised a new understanding of the functions of other narrowly conceptualized
systems and a new appreciation of the multi-determined etiology of pathophysiological states. A
paradigm shift was occurring and, as a result of the nearly twenty years of research precipitated by
the above findings, it is no longer possible to study immunoregulatory processes as an
independent function of the immune system. The research initiated by these investigators were
giant steps and, despite the fact that they originated from different perspectives, they had a
common effect. There were earlier, isolated studies, but most of the current research in the field
derives directly or indirectly from these seminal studies. These were enabling studies in the sense
41
Ader
that they raised questions and, further, legitimized questions that had not been asked before. And
if these questions and, sometimes, the questioners were ridiculed, another almost universal
experience, the evidence was, first, compelling, and then overwhelming. Thus, as Schopenhauer
observed, All truth passes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Second it is violently
opposed. Third it is accepted as being self evident. This has almost become a cliche, yet a recent
textbook in immunology89 devotes a section to neuroendocrine-immune system relationships and
concludes that, Clinical and experimental psychoneuroimmunology studies to date confirm the
long-standing belief that the immune system does not function completely autonomously. (Italics
added).
It is the research conducted during the past 20 years that probably accounts for 95 per
cent or more of what is now known about the relationships among behavioral, neural and
endocrine, and immune processes of adaptation3 and led to the general (and sometimes still
begrudging) acknowledgment that, like other physiological processes operating to protect the
organism, the immune system is part of an integrated system of adaptive processes and is
thus subject to some regulation by the brain. Two pathways link the brain with the immune
system: autonomic nervous system activity and neuroendocrine outflow via the pituitary.
Both routes provide biologically active molecules which are perceived by the immune system
via cell surface or internal receptors on the surface of lymphocytes,
monocytes/macrophages
and
granulocytes. Thus,
all immunoregulatory
processes take place within a neuroendocrine milieu that is demonstrably sensitive to the
influence of the individuals perception of and response to events occurring in the external
world.
Conversely, we have learned that activation of the immune system is accompanied by changes in
hypothalamic, autonomic, and endocrine processes, and by changes in behavior. For example,
cytokines influence activation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis and, in turn, are
influenced by glucocorticoid secretion.70 The potential interaction of neuroendocrine and
immune processes is further magnified by the fact that cells of the immune system activated by
immunogenic stimuli are capable of producing a variety of neuropeptides.90 Thus, the exchange
of information between the brain and the immune system is bidirectional.
Based on the above, it is hardly surprising that behavioral factors are capable of modifying
immune function or that activation of the immune system would have consequences for behavior.
The Pavlovian conditioning of the suppression or enhancement of immune responses51 and,
conversely, the conditioning of the physiological effects of cytokines91 both reflect adaptive
immunoregulatory processes. The majority of the behavioral research, derived in large measure
from the work of Hans Selye, has addressed the immunologic effects of stressful experiences.
42
Ader
Early studies concentrated on the immunosuppressive effects of adrenal gland activation. These
pharmacologic and physiologic studies were complemented by the behavioral studies of
Rasmussens group in the 1950s, by Friedman and Ader and by Solomon in the 1960s and by a host
of others, primarily physiologists, during this same time period.92,93 There was not a lot of
research of this kind from the late 60s until the publication of Psychoneuroimmunology.2 In the
1980s, however, stress and immune function was revived and, armed with a modern
technology, became the dominant theme of the behavioral component of
psychoneuroimmunology.
Human studies of the immunologic changes associated with emotional states and stressful life
experiences also took shape in the 1980s. Stimulated by a description of some of the immunologic
effects of sudden bereavement,94 researchers began to address the effects of losses (e.g., the
death of a spouse) and of affective states, particularly, depression, on immunity. For example,
Marvin Stein, then Chair of the Department of Psychiatry at the Mt. Sinai Hospital and Medical
Center in New York, had, during the 1960s, been actively involved in studies of the effects of
hypothalamic lesions and stimulation on anaphylactic reactions in guinea pigs.95 Like Solomon,
Stein returned to psychoneuroimmunology in the 1980s with a program of animal research on the
immunologic effects of stressful experiences and a program of human studies of the immunologic
changes associated with loss and with depression. In this, Stein was able to engage an
interdisciplinary team of young investigators (and to stimulate the interest of several others) who
now have psychoneuroimmunology laboratories of their own.
Similarly, the unique team of Janice Kiecolt-Glaser, a psychologist, and Ronald Glaser who, as
Chair of a Department of Medical Microbiology and Immunology, entered the field with
considerable apprehension, initiated an extensive series of studies that began with the effects of
examinations in medical students on changes in immunity.96 Glaser, like many others, became
convinced of the role of behavioral factors in the modulation of immunity only when he found
such relationships in his own data. Although a common event in the life of students, examination
periods were found to be reliably associated with a general depression of immune function
including, as a consequence, an elevation in antibodies to Epstein-Barr virus. These studies were
directly and indirectly responsible for a reemergence of animal and human studies by behavioral
scientists and by immunologists on the effects of stressful life experiences on immune function
and susceptibility to infectious diseases.
In animals and in humans, a variety of psychosocial events interpreted as being stressful to the
organism are capable of influencing a variety of immune responses. It is now clear, however, that
different stressors have different effects on some constant outcome measure and that the same
stressor can have different effects on different outcome measures. The direction, magnitude
and duration of stressinduced alterations of immunity are influenced by: (a) the quality and
quantity of stressful stimulation; (b) the capacity of the individual to cope effectively with stressful
events; (c) the quality and quantity of immunogenic stimulation; (d) the temporal relationship
between stressful stimulation and immunogenic stimulation; (e) sampling times and the particular
aspect of immune function (or compartment) chosen for measurement; (f) the experiential history
43
Ader
of the individual and the existing social and environmental conditions upon which stressful and
immunogenic stimulation are superimposed; (g) a variety of host factors such as species, strain,
age, sex, and nutritional state; and (h) interactions among these several variables. This listing of
relevant variables identified in recent research paraphrases the variables identified from a much
earlier analysis of the effects of stressful life experiences on behavioral and physiological
responses and on susceptibility to disease.17,97 Indeed, prospective as well as retrospective
studies in animals and humans have also shown that, depending on interactions among the
qualitative and quantitative nature of the environmental demands and the pathophysiologic
process, the experimental procedures, and a variety of host factors, stressful experiences can alter
the hosts defense mechanisms thereby altering susceptibility to bacterial and viral infections,
modifying the neuroinvasiveness of normally non-neurovirulent strains of virus, or allowing an
otherwise inconsequential exposure to a pathogen to develop into clinical disease.1,98,99
The behavioral and emotional states that attend the perception of and the effort to adapt to
environmental circumstances are accompanied by complex patterns of neuroendocrine changes.
That the neural and endocrine patterns associated with behavioral and emotional states are
capable of modulating immune functions lends credence to the hypothesis that changes in
immune function constitute an important mediator of the pathophysiological effects of stressful
life experiences. This chain of psychophysiological events may not yet have been firmly
established, but, as this volume attests, the possibility is attracting renewed attention and the
data are providing evidence of the relevance of psychosociallyinduced alterations in immune
function for differences in the susceptibility to and progression of infectious diseases.
Where is psychoneuroimmunology today? Its still working out some adolescent problems and on
its way to young adulthood. It has not yet achieved the maturity of neuroendocrinology or the
more recent psychoneuroendocrinology and it has not been granted the scientific respectability
it has earned and to which it is entitled. Still, psychoneuroimmunology continues to grow. Brain,
Behavior and Immunity began publishing in 1987 and there are now two other journals devoted
to the area. Research reports are now considered (and solicited) for publication in a variety of
peer reviewed journals in immunology, psychology and in the neurosciences, including
endocrinology. There are now two international societies and papers in the field occupy
increasing blocks of time at the meetings of other scientific societies. There has been an increase
in the number of students (including M.D./Ph.D. candidates) from psychology, immunology and
the neurosciences interested in working in the area, and there has been an increase in the number
of funded research and research training grants.
There has also been a proliferation of edited volumes that address various aspects of the field
(e.g., Psychoneuroimmunology, Stress and Infection).
Psychoneuroimmunology is, perhaps, the most recent example of an interdisciplinary field that
has developed and now prospers by exploring and tilling fertile territories secreted by the arbitrary
and illusory boundaries of the biomedical sciences. Disciplinary boundaries and the bureaucracies
they spawned are biological fictions that can restrict imagination and the transfer and application
of technologies. They lend credence to Werner Heisenbergs assertion that What we observe is
44
Ader
not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning. (p. 81).100 Our own
language, too, must change. The signal molecules of the nervous and immune systems are
expressed and perceived by both systems. Therefore, it may no longer be appropriate to speak of
neurotransmitters and immunotransmitters. Also, to speak of links or channels of
communication between the nervous and immune systems perpetuates the myth that these are
discrete systems (or disciplines). On the contrary, the evidence indicates that relationships
between so-called systems are as important and, perhaps, more important than relationships
within systems; that so-called systems are critical components of a single, integrated network
of homeostatic mechanisms. To the extent that the problems chosen for study and innovative
research strategies to address these problems derive from conceptual and theoretical positions,
these are important issues.
More substantively, research conducted over the past several years has resulted in a recognition
and appreciation of the interactions among behavioral, neural, endocrine, and immune processes.
Indeed, there has been a paradigm shift in the attempt to understand immunoregulatory
function. The innervation of lymphoid organs and the availability of neurotransmitters for
interactions with cells of the immune system add a new dimension to our understanding of the
microenvironment in which immune responses take place. Similarly, the interaction between
pituitary-, endocrine organ-, and lymphocyte-derived hormones that define the neuroendocrine
milieu in which immune responses occur adds another level of complexity to the analysis of the
cellular interactions that drive immune responses. Collectively, these relationships provide the
foundation for previously observed behaviorally-induced alterations in immune function and for
immunologically based changes in behavior. They may also provide the means by which
psychosocial factors and the emotional states that accompany the perception and response to
stressful life experiences influence the development and progression of infectious, autoimmune
and neoplastic disease.
45
Ader
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am grateful to Drs. Hugo Besedovsky, J. Edwin Blalock, John Hadden, and George Solomon for
providing for me a brief written description of their perspectives on psychoneuroimmunology and
for their comments and corrections of an earlier draft of this paper. I am also indebted to Dr.
Sherman M. Melinkoff, Professor Emeritus of Medicine and former Dean of the UCLA School of
Medicine for his personal reflections of A. Fred Rasmussen. Thanks are also due to my colleagues,
Drs. David Felten and Nicholas Cohen who contributed material for this essay. The responsibility
for the selection of these particular perspectives, the editorializing, and any remaining errors are
my own.
Preparation of this paper was supported by a Research Scientist Award (K05 MH06318) from the
National Institute of Mental Health.
FOOTNOTES
*As I write this chapter, it seems evident that the financial support for research in
psychoneuroimmunology, despite its successes, will face serious difficulties over the next several
years (but thats a different chapter).
46
Ader
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
Ader, R., Felten, D.L., Cohen, N., Eds, Psychoneuroimmunology, Second Edition, Academic
Press, New York, 1991.
4.
Metalnikov, S., Chorine, V., Role des reflexes conditonnels dans limunite, Ann. Inst.
Pasteur, 40, 893, 1926.
5.
6.
Kopeloff, N., Kopeloff, L.M., Raney, M.E., The nervous system and antibody production,
Psychiat Quart, 7, 84, 1933.
7.
8.
9.
Rasmussen, A.F., Jr., Marsh, J.T., Brill, N.Q., Increased susceptibility to herpes simplex in
mice subjected to avoidance-learning stress or restraint, Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med., 96,
183, 1957.
10.
Johnson, T., Lavender, J.F., Hultin, F., Rasmussen, A.F., Jr., The influence of avoidancelearning stress on resistance to Coxsackie B virus in mice, J.
Immunol., 91, 569, 1965.
11.
Jensen, M.M., Rasmussen, A.F., Jr., Stress and susceptibility to viral infection. I. Response
of adrenals, liver, thymus, spleen and peripheral leukocyte counts to sound stress, J.
Immunol., 90, 17, 1963.
12.
Marsh, J.T., Lavender, J.F., Chang, S.S., Rasmussen, A.F., Jr., Poliomyelitis in monkeys:
Decreased susceptibility after avoidance stress, Science, 1450, 1414, 1963.
47
Ader
13.
14.
15.
Yamada, A., Jensen, M.M., Rasmussen, A.F., Jr., Stress and susceptibility to
viral infections. III. Antibody response and viral retention during avoidance learning
stress, Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med., 116, 677, 1964.
16.
Friedman, S.B., Ader, R., Glasgow, L.A., Effects of psychological stress in adult mice
inoculated with Coxsackie B viruses, Psychosom. Med., 27, 361, 1965.
17.
Friedman, S.B., Glasgow, L.A., Ader, R., Psychosocial factors modifying host resistance to
experimental infections, Ann. NY Acad. Sci. , 164, 381, 1969.
18.
Solomon, G.F., Stress and antibody response in rats, Int. Arch. Allergy, 35, 97, 1969.
19.
Solomon, G.F., Emotions and personality factors in the onset and course of autoimmune
disease, particularly rheumatoid arthritis, in Psychoneuroimmunology, Ader, R., Ed.,
Academic Press, New York, 1981, 159.
20.
Solomon, G.F., Moos, R.H., Fessel, W.J., Morgan, E.E., Globulins and
behavior in schizophrenia, Int. J. Neuropsychiat., 2, 20, 1966.
21.
Solomon, G.F., Moos, R.H., The relationship of personality to the presence of rheumatoid
factor in asymptomatic relatives of patients with rheumatoid arthritis, Psychsom. Med., 27,
350, 1965.
22.
Good, R.A., Experimental models in systemic lupus erythematosus, Arthr. Rheum., 6, 490,
1963.
23.
24.
48
Ader
25.
Solomon, G.F., Merigan, T., Levine, S., Variations in adrenal cortical hormones within
physiological ranges and interferon production in mice, Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med., 126, 74,
1967.
26.
Solomon, G.F., Levine, S., Kraft, J.K., Early experience and immunity, Nature, 220, 821,
1968.
27.
Amkraut, A.A., Solomon, G.F., Stress and murine sarcoma virus (Maloney)induced tumors,
Cancer Res., 32, 1428, 1972.
28.
Amkraut, A.A., Solomon, G.F., Kaspar, P., Purdue, A., Effect of stress and of hormonal
intervention on the graft versus host response, Adv. Exp. Med. Biol., 29, 667, 1972.
29.
Amkraut, A.A., Solomon, G.F., Kraemer, H.C., Stress, early experience, and
adjuvant-induced arthritis in the rat, Psychosom. Med., 33, 203, 1971.
30.
Solomon, G.F., Temoshuk, L., OLeary, A., Zich, J., An intensive immunologic study of longsurviving persons with AIDS: Plot work, background studies, hypotheses, and methods,
Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci., 496, 647, 1987.
31.
32.
Szentivanyi, A., Filipp, G., Anaphylaxis and the nervous system. II., Ann.
Allergy, 16, 143, 1958.
33.
Szentivanyi, A., Szekely, J., Anaphylaxis and the nervous system. IV., Ann. Allergy, 16, 389,
1958.
34.
35.
Bourne, H., Melmon, K., Liechtenstein, L., Histamine augments leukocyte adenosine 3,5monophosphate and blocks antigenic histamine release, Science, 173, 743, 1971.
36.
Hadden, J.W., Hadden, E.M., Good, R.A., Alpha adrenergic stimulation of glucose uptake in
the human erythrocyte, lymphocyte and lymphoblast, Exp. Cell Res., 68, 217, 1971.
49
Ader
37.
Hadden, J.W., Hadden, E.M., Middleton, E., Good, R.A., Lymphocyte blast transformation.
II. The mechanisms of action of alpha adrenergic receptor effects, Int. Arch. Allergy Appl.
Immunol., 40, 526, 1971.
38.
39.
Hadden, J.W., Hadden, E.M., Haddox, M., Goldberg N.D., Guanosine cyclic 35monophosphate: A possible intracellular mediator of mitogenic influences in lymphocytes,
Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., 69, 3024, 1972.
40.
Strom, T.B., Disseroth, B., Morganroth, J., Carpenter, C, Merrill, J., Alteration of the
cytotoxic action of sensitized lymphocytes by cholinergic
agents and activators of adenylate cyclase, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., 69, 2995, 1972.
41.
Hadden, J.W., Hadden, E.M., Meetz, G., Good, R.A., Haddox, M.K., Goldberg, N.D., Cyclic
GMP in cholinergic and mitogenic modulation of lymphocyte metabolism and proliferation,
Fed. Proc., 32, 1022, 1973.
42.
Hadden, J.W., Hadden, E.M., Coffey, R.G., Johnson, E.M., Johnson, L.D., Cyclic GMP and
lymphocyte activation, in Immune Recognition, Rosenthal, A., Ed., Academic Press, New
York, 1975, 359.
43.
Good,
R.
A.,
Foreword:
Interactions
of
the
bodys
major
networks,
in
Psychoneuroimmunology, Ader, R., Ed., Academic Press, New York, 1981, xvii.
44.
45.
Saha, A.R. Hadden, E.M., Sosa, M., and Hadden, J.W., Thymus in neuroendocrine
perspective, in Nitric Oxide: Brain and Immune System, Moncada, S., Nistico, G., and Higgs,
E.A., Eds., Portland Press, England, 1993, 43.
46.
47.
Ader, R., Cohen, N., Behaviorally conditioned immunosuppression, Psychosom. Med., 37,
333, 1975.
50
Ader
48.
Rogers, M.P., Reich, P. Strom, T.B., and Carpenter, C.B., Behaviorally conditioned
immunosuppression: Replication of a recent study, Psychosom. Med., 38, 447, 1976.
49.
Ader, R., Cohen, N., CNS-immune system interactions: Conditioning phenomena, Behav.
Brain Sci., 8, 379, 1985.
50.
Ader, R.,
Psychoneuroimmunology, Second Edition, Ader, R., Felten, D.L., Cohen, N., Eds., Academic
Press, New York, 611, 1991.
51.
Ader, R., & Cohen, N., Psychoneuroimmunology: Conditioning and stress, Ann. Rev.
Psychol., 44, 53, 1993.
52.
Ader, R., Kelly, K., Moynihan, J., Grota, L.J., Cohen, N., Conditioned enhancement of
antibody production using antigen as the unconditioned stimulus, Brain Behav. Immun., 7,
334, 1993.
53.
Gorczynski, R.M., Macrae, S., and Kennedy, M., Conditioned immune response associated
with allogeneic skin grafts in mice, J. Immunol., 129, 704, 1982.
54.
Ader, R., Cohen, N., Behaviorally conditioned immunosuppression and murine systemic
lupus erythematosus, Science, 214, 1534, 1982.
55.
56.
Grochowicz, P., Schedlowski, M., Husband, A.J., King, M.G., Hibberd, A.D., Bowen, K.M.,
Behavioral conditioning prolongs heart allograft survival in rats, Brain Behav. Immun., 5,
349, 1991.
57.
58.
Besedovsky, H.O., Delay in skin allograft rejection in rats grafted with fetal
adrenal glands, Experientia, 26, 697, 1971.
59.
Besedovsky, H.O., Sorkin, E., Keller, M., and Mueller, J., Hormonal changes during the
immune response, Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med., 150, 466, 1975.
60.
51
Ader
61.
Besedovsky, H.O., Sorkin, E., Felix,. R. and Haas, H., Hypothalamic changes during the
immune response, Europ. J. Immunol., 7, 323, 1977.
62.
Besedovsky, H.O., del Rey, A.E., and Sorkin, E., Antigenic competition between horse and
sheep red blood cells as a hormone-dependent phenomenon, Clin. Exp. Immunol., 37,
106, 1979.
63.Besedovsky, H.O., del Rey, A.E., Sorkin, E., DaPrada, M., and Keller, H.A., Immunoregulation
mediated by the sympathetic nervous system, Cell. Immunol., 48, 346, 1979.
64.
del Rey, A., Besedovsky, H.O., Sorkin, E., DaPrada, M., and Bondiolotti, P., Sympathetic
immunoregulation: Difference between high- and low-responder animals, Am. J.
Physiol., 242, R30, 1982.
65.
del Rey, A., Besedovsky, H.O., Sorkin, E., DaPrada, M., and Arrenbrecht, S.,
Immunoregulation mediated by the sympathetic nervous system. II., Cell. Immunol., 63,
329, 1981.
66.
Besedovsky, H.O., del Rey, A.E., Sorkin, E., DaPrada, M., Burri, R., and Honegger, C., The
immune response evokes changes in brain noradrenergic neurons, Science, 221, 564,
1983.
67.
Besedovsky, H.O., del Rey, A.E., and Sorkin, E., Lymphokine containing supernatants from
Con A-stimulated cells increase corticosterone blood levels, J. Immunol., 126, 385, 1981.
68.
Besedovsky, H.O., del Rey, A.E., Sorkin, E., Lotz, W., and Schwulera, U., Lymphoid cells
produce an immunoregulatory glucocorticoid increasing factors (GIF) acting through the
pituitary gland, Clin Exp. Immunol., 59, 622,1985.
69.
Besedovsky, H.O., del Rey, A., Sorkin, E., and Dinarello, C.A., Immunoregulatory feedback
between interleukin-1 and glucocorticoid hormones, Science, 233, 652, 1986.
70.
Berkenbosch, J., Van Oers, J., del Rey, A., Tilders, F., and Besedovky, H.O., Corticotropinreleasing factor-producing neurons in the rat activated by interleukin-1, Science, 238,
524, 1987.
71.
Besedovsky, H.O., del Rey, A. & Normann, S., Host endocrine responses during tumor
growth, in Immunity to Cancer II., Mitchell, M.S., Ed., Alan Liss, New York, 1989, 203.
52
Ader
72.
deRijk, R., van Rooujen, N., Besedovsky, H.O., del Rey, A., and Berkenbosch, F., Selective
depletion of macrophages prevents pituitaryadrenal activation in response to
subpyrogenic, but not to pyrogenic, doses of bacterial endotoxin in rats, Endocrinology,
129, 330, 1991.
73.
Besedovsky, H.O. and del Rey, A., Mechanism of virus-induced stimulation of the
hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, J. Steroid Biochem., 34, 235, 1989.
74.
Cohen, N. & Ader, R., Antibodies and learning: A new dimension, in The Immune System,
Vol. 1, Steinberg, C., & Lefkovits, I., Eds., Karger, Basel, 51, 1981.
75.
Blalock, J.E. and Smith, E.M., Human leukocyte interferon: Structural and biological
relatedness to adrenocorticotropic hormone and endorphins, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., USA,
77, 5972, 1980.
76.
Blalock, J.E. and Harp. C., Interferon and adrenocorticotropic hormone induction of
steroidogenesis, melanogenesis and antiviral activity, Arch. Virol., 67, 45, 1981.
77.
Smith, E.M. and Blalock, J.E., Human lymphocyte production of corticotropin- and
endorphin-like substances: Association with leukocyte interferon, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.,
USA, 78, 7530, 1981.
78.
Blalock, J.E., The immune system as a sensory organ, J. Immunol., 132, 1067, 1984.
79.
80.
Smith, E.M., Galin, F.S., LeBoeuf, R.D., Coppenhaver, D.H., Harbour, D.V., and Blalock, J.E.,
Nucleotide and amino acid sequence of lymphocytederived corticotropin: Endotoxin
induction of a truncated peptide, Proc Nat. Acad. Sci., USA, 87, 1057, 1990.
81.
Williams, J.M., Peterson, R.G., Shea, P.A., Schmedtje, J.F., Bauer, D.C., and Felten, D.L.,
Sympathetic innervation of murine thymus and spleen: Evidence for a functional link
between the nervous and immune system, Brain Res. Bulletin, 6, 83, 1981.
82.
Livnat, S., Felten, S.Y., Carlson, S.L., Bellinger, D.L., and Felten, D.L., Involvement of
peripheral and central catecholamine systems in neuralimmune interactions, J.
Neuroimmunology, 10, 5, 1985.
53
Ader
83.
Felten, D.L., Ackerman, K.D., Wiegand, S.J., and Felten, S.Y., Noradrenergic sympathetic
innervation of the spleen: I. Nerve fibers associate with lymphocytes and macrophages in
specific compartments of the splenic white pulp, J. Neurosci. Res, 18, 28, 1987.
84.
Felten, D.L., Felten, S.Y., Bellinger, D.L., Carlson, S.L., Ackerman, K.D., Madden, K.S.,
Olschowka, J.A., and Livnat, S., Noradrenergic sympathetic neural interactions with the
immune system: Structure and function, Immunol. Rev., 100, 225, 1987.
85.
Felten, S.Y., and Olschowka, J.A., Noradrenergic sympathetic innervation of the spleen: II.
Tyrosine hydroxylase (TH)-positive nerve terminals form synaptic-like contacts on
lymphocytes in the splenic white pulp, J. Neurosci.
Res., 18, 37, 1987.
86.
Ackerman, K.D., Felten, S.Y., Dijkstra, C.D., Livnat, S., and Felten, D.L., Parallel
development of noradrenergic innervation and cellular compartmentation in the rat
spleen, Exp. Neurol., 103, 239, 1989.
87.
Bellinger, D.L., Ackerman, K.D., Felten, S.Y., Pulera, M., and Felten, D.L., A longitudinal
study of age-related loss of noradrenergic nerves and lymphoid cells in the rat spleen,
Exp. Neurol., 116, 295, 1992.
88.
Felten, D.L., Felten, S.Y., Bellinger, D.L., and Lorton, D., Noradrenergic and peptidergic
innervation of secondary lymphoid organs: Role in experimental rheumatoid arthritis,
Europ. J. Clin. Invest., 22, Suppl. 1, 37, 1992.
89.
Stites, D.P., and Terr, A.I., Basis and Clinical Immunology, Seventh Edition, Appleton &
Lange, Norwalk, 190, 1991.
90.
the
immune
and
neuroendocrine
systems,
in
Neuropeptides
and
Immunoregulation, Scharrer, B., Smith, E.M., & Stefano, G.B., Eds., Springer-Verlag, Berlin,
1994, 14.
91.
Dyck, D,. Janz, L., Osachuk, T.A.G., Falk, J., Labinsky, J. and Greenberg, A.H., The Pavlovian
conditioning of IL-1-induced glucocorticoid secretion, Brain Behav. Immun., 4, 93, 1990.
92.
54
Ader
93.
Ader, R., and Cohen, N., Behavior and the immune system, in Handbook of Behavioral
Medicine Research, Gentry, W.D., Ed., Guilford Press, New York, 1984, 117.
94.
Bartrop, R.W., Luckhurst, E., Lazarus, L., Kiloh, L.G., Penny, R., Depressed lymphocyte
function after bereavement, Lancet , i, 834, 1977.
95.
Stein, M., Schleifer, S.J., Keller, S.E., Hypothalamic influences on immune responses, in
Psychoneuroimmunology, Ader, R., Ed., Academic Press, New York, 429, 1981.
96.
Glaser, R., Rice, J., Sheridan, J., Fertel, R., Stout, J., Speicher, C., Pinsky, D., Kotur, M., Post,
A., Beck, M., Kiecolt-Glaser, J.A., Stress-related immune suppression: Health implications,
Brain Behav. Immun., 1, 7, 1987.
97.
Ader, R., The influence of psychological factors on disease susceptibility in animals, in The
Husbandry of Laboratory Animals, Conalty, M.L., Ed., Academic Press, London, 1967, 219.
98.
Cohen, S. and Williamson, G., Stress and infectious disease in humans, Psychol. Bull.,
109, 5, 1991.
99.
Sheridan,
J.F.,
Dobbs, C.,
Brown, D.,
Zwilling,
B.,
100.
Heisenberg, W., Physics and Philosophy, the Revolution in Modern Science, Harper, New
York, 1958, 81.
55