Rekvig Ole Petter
Fürst Medical Laboratory, Oslo, Norway.
Department of Medical Biology, Faculty of Health Sciences, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway.
Front Immunol. 2025 Jan 28;15:1507792. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2024.1507792. eCollection 2024.
In attempts to understand systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), we find ourselves in the intellectual cross-point between nosology, pathogenicity-oriented science, philosophy, empiricism, and qualified conjectures. A vital consequence in science theory is that scientific hypotheses that are not critically investigated are in danger of being transformed into scientific dogmas. This statement has consequences for this study. Two central problematic aspects are discussed. For the first, we have to consider new selection principles for classification criteria-implying integration of the causality principle. Second, central historical data must be implemented if we aim to understand SLE. These data comprise famous descriptions of distinct, dynamically changing DNA structures linked to the genetic machinery. These unique structures have since their discoveries decades ago mostly been ignored in SLE research. Likewise, inconclusive dogmatic data indicate that different glomerular ligands are recognized by nephritogenic anti-dsDNA antibodies-exposed chromatin fragments or inherent membrane ligands. These incongruent models have not been comparatively and systematically investigated. Three research areas will be critically discussed: () selection and role of SLE classification criteria, a process that must imply the causality principle; () definition and impact of anti-dsDNA structure-specific antibodies; () incongruent pathogenic models that account for lupus nephritis. A precise and critically important question is if SLE itself is a response to a dominant unified cause that initiates a cascade of downstream effects (criteria) or if SLE represents combined responses to a random interplay of multiple cause-effect events. These principally different explanations are formally not excluded or accepted today. Currently, SLE may be regarded as a disease with phenotypic diversity, independently segregated manifestations with unresolved etiologies that are not unique to a single SLE phenotype. The focus for the present discussion is basically how we, by critical hypotheses, can re-consider science-based selection of SLE classification criteria in order to delimitate and rationalize SLE. Classification criteria, autoimmunity, DNA structures, and anti-dsDNA antibodies are integrated aspects in this discussion.
在试图理解系统性红斑狼疮(SLE)的过程中,我们发现自己处于疾病分类学、以致病性为导向的科学、哲学、经验主义和有根据的推测之间的知识交叉点。科学理论中的一个重要结果是,未经严格研究的科学假设有可能转变为科学教条。这一说法对本研究有影响。本文讨论了两个核心问题。首先,我们必须考虑分类标准的新选择原则——这意味着要整合因果关系原则。其次,如果我们旨在理解SLE,就必须纳入核心历史数据。这些数据包括对与遗传机制相关的独特、动态变化的DNA结构的著名描述。自几十年前发现这些独特结构以来,它们在SLE研究中大多被忽视。同样,不确定的教条性数据表明,致肾炎的抗双链DNA抗体暴露的染色质片段或固有膜配体可识别不同的肾小球配体。这些不一致的模型尚未得到比较和系统的研究。将对三个研究领域进行批判性讨论:(1)SLE分类标准的选择及其作用,这一过程必须包含因果关系原则;(2)抗双链DNA结构特异性抗体的定义及其影响;(3)解释狼疮性肾炎的不一致致病模型。一个精确且至关重要的问题是,SLE本身是对引发一系列下游效应(标准)的主要统一病因的反应,还是代表对多个因果事件随机相互作用的综合反应。目前,这两种本质上不同的解释在形式上既未被排除也未被接受。目前,SLE可被视为一种具有表型多样性的疾病,其表现独立分离,病因未明,并非单一SLE表型所特有。本次讨论的重点基本上是我们如何通过批判性假设,重新考虑基于科学的SLE分类标准选择,以便界定和合理化SLE。分类标准、自身免疫、DNA结构和抗双链DNA抗体是本次讨论中相互关联的方面。