When a cell dies in vivo the event does not go unnoticed. The host has evolved mechanisms to detect the death of cells and rapidly investigate the nature of their demise. If cell death is a result of natural causes, that is, it is part of normal physiological processes, then there is little threat to the organism. In this situation, little else is done other than removing the corpse. However, if cells have died as the consequence of some violence or disease, then both defence and repair mechanisms are mobilized. The importance of this process to host defence and disease pathogenesis has only been appreciated relatively recently. This article will review our current knowledge of these processes.The immune system was recognized in ancient times and rediscovered by Jenner and Pasteur based on its ability to confer protection upon repeat exposure to a pathogen. Through subsequent studies by Von Behring and others it rapidly became apparent that the immune system had the potential to respond not only to whole microorganisms, but to virtually any molecule that was "foreign" to the host. However, whereas injection of such molecules would often provoke a robust immune response, this did not invariably occur. Immunization protocols improved in the 1920s with the discovery by Ramon and Glenny of immunostimulatory molecules (adjuvants [G]) that could boost immune responses to co-administered antigens. Adjuvants were typically of microbial origin and became widely used to promote the effectiveness of immunizations. In the 1960s, Dresser showed that a foreign protein when highly purified would only elicit an immune response if it was admixed with a microbial adjuvant 1 . Injected by itself, the antigen not only failed to elicit immunity but actually induced a state of tolerance 2 . However, the significance of these observations was not well appreciated and adjuvants remained one of those things that everyone used because they were part of standard operating procedures.In 1989 Janeway put these empirical observations into a conceptual framework 3 (Fig. 1). He proposed that the immune system did not respond to all foreign antigens but only to those that are potentially associated with infection. The underlying idea here was that the immune system evolved to protect organisms against microorganisms and this discrimination between infectious versus noninfectious antigens focused defences on real threats rather than innocuous situations.At this time, it was already recognized that in order to stimulate T cell responses, antigens had to first be acquired and presented on MHC molecules of an antigen presenting cell (APC). Moreover, it was further known that APCs also provided additional costimulatory signals necessary to activate T cells. Janeway incorporated these principles into his model (Fig. 1). He postulated that the discrimination between infectious and noninfectious non-self molecules was made by the APCs of the innate immune system through receptors that would recognize pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMP...