Measuring attack on self: The need for field‐friendly methods development and research on autoimmunity in human biology

Abstract

Background: Autoimmune and inflammatory disorder (AIID) prevalence appears to be increasing in all but the world's poorest regions and countries. Autoimmune diseases occur when there is a breakdown in processes that regulate inflammation and self-recognition by immune cells. Very few field-based studies have been conducted among Indigenous populations and underserved communities with limited access to medical care. This is due, in part, to the fact that autoimmune diseases are difficult to diagnose, even in clinical settings. In remote field settings these difficulties are compounded by the absence of infrastructure necessary for sample storage and analysis, and the lack of hospital/clinic access for more invasive diagnostic procedures. Because of these limitations, little is known about the prevalence of autoimmunity outside wealthy regions and clinical settings. Aims: The present paper discusses why AIID are of critical importance in human biology research and why more work needs to be devoted to validating, testing, and utilizing methods for detecting autoantibodies and other biomarkers related to autoimmunity in field-friendly, minimally invasivelycollected samples. This paper reviews some of the methods used to diagnose AIIDs in clinical settings, and highlights methods that have been used in studies within human biology and related fields, emphasizing the invasiveness of specific methods and their feasibility in remote field settings. Discussion and Conclusions: Risk for AIID is affected by several reproductive, dietary, environmental, and genetic factors. Human biologists have unique perspectives that they can bring to autoimmunity research, and more populationbased studies on autoimmunity are needed within these and related fields.

Ecoimmunology in the field: Measuring multiple dimensions of immune function with minimally invasive, field‐adapted techniques

“…These studies often involve measures of the disease state in question, often linked to either excess inflammation or to misdirected immunity, for example, autoimmunity or allergy. Measures of inflammation have been noted above, and for information on measures of autoimmunity, see Cepon‐Robins ( 2021 ). Additionally, measures related to the regulation of immunity are important for this area of study, including counts of regulatory T cells through flow cytometry and measurement of cytokines characteristic of Th1 or Th2 immune responses (e.g., IL‐10, IL‐4, IFN‐γ).…”

Minimally invasive biomarkers in human population biology research, part 2: An introduction to the special issue

“…Research described in this special issue by Blackwell and Garcia (2022), Barrett et al (2022) and DeCaro and Helfrecht (2022), as well as by Cepon‐Robins (2021) in the earlier special issue, provides us with the tools and conceptual clarity to further investigate these ideas, and to test predictions of the Old Friends Hypothesis in innovative ways.…”

“…The earlier special issue featured contributions from Gildner (2021) and Quinn (2021) that systematically reviewed and described the broad applicability of existing minimally invasive reproductive hormone methods and milk composition techniques, respectively. That same issue included Cepon‐Robins' (2021) timely review of autoimmune biomarkers, making the case for increased investment in the development of minimally invasive, field‐friendly methods that will allow the measurement of autoimmune and inflammatory disorders beyond the current situation in which their use is primarily limited to hospitals and clinics in wealthy nations. Finally, Rej et al (2021) describe their work on methods development in telomere length (TL) from dried blood spots (DBS), reporting on the development of an extraction protocol, which they then compare with published research on TL in DBS, saliva, and buccal cells.…”

After Theranos: Using point‐of‐care testing to advance measures of health biomarkers in human biology research

“…Still, despite the growing use of certain POCT by human biologists, more work is needed to establish the utility of these tests in non‐clinical contexts (Cepon‐Robins, 2021). For instance, we are aware of very few published results of formal testing under field conditions.…”