• Welcome to Crohn's Forum, a support group for people with all forms of IBD. While this community is not a substitute for doctor's advice and we cannot treat or diagnose, we find being able to communicate with others who have IBD is invaluable as we navigate our struggles and celebrate our successes. We invite you to join us.

Goblet Cells role in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

David

Co-Founder
Location
Naples, Florida
Wow, that's fascinating. Good find!

I hope you don't mind but I changed the title of the thread to describe the article a little. Please let me know if you do and I'll change it back.
 
no i don't mind at all, and i read Science Daily ...well ... daily and they do have articles about ibd and ibs but this one i thought was noteworthy.
 

kiny

Well-known member
Thanks, although I have some issues with the article, the study makes sense but the article doesn't make much sense in some parts.

"inflammatory bowel disease -- disorders caused by an overactive immune system"

^^ This isn't sure at all http://www.springerlink.com/content/c313853j75872167/ crohn could very well be the exact opposite, which would explain the theory that crohn is caused by bacteria.
 
Last edited:
They are saying that the goblet cells not only transport antigens across the mucus barrier, but also have now been found to educate T-cells about what is harmless and what needs to be attacked - that is the key finding!
If the goblet cells aren't functioning correctly they may trigger a response to something in food that is actually harmless. Hence the so-called overreaction of the immune system.
 

kiny

Well-known member
the article doesn't show in any way this is related to crohn

the statement he made does relate to crohn, since he mentions IBD

The article doesn't say "might be" or "is possibly", no, they say with authority that Crohn is an overreactive immune system, even though many papers show the exact opposite, even the article itself shows he could be wrong, since non-functioning goblet cells could lead to an immune deficiency just as easily as an immune overreaction.

"inflammatory bowel disease -- disorders caused by an overactive immune system" -> proof is where?

That is wrong on the article's part, he should not say stuff like that without giving a reason. You cannot say "crohn is X" without explaining why.

@handle you are jumbling both up into one and the same, as if they are somehow related

goblet cells -> related to immune system -> ............missing part....-> crohn -> you and the article making false conclusions


You also did another thing that's wrong, you related goblet cells that aren't functioning properly to an overreactive immune response, even though it could just as well lead to an immune deficiency, just to make the article seem like they're right, you picked a part of the article that suited your needs, that's not right.

You purpously left out this part: "Or maybe they're not delivering antigens at all or too many antigens. We just don't know yet."

^^this neither shows an immune deficiency or immune overreaction, it could be one, the other, or both
 
Last edited:
Who said anything about Crohns? Not me. I explained the crucial part of the article that had clearly confused you.
You keep trying to relate things to your preconceived ideas. That's why you totally misunderstand things. I leave my preconceptions behind when analyzing information. I didn't make any statements about what causes Crohns, or any other issue you dreamed up.
 

kiny

Well-known member
Who said anything about Crohns? Not me.
Well, I did if you were responding to me. Crohn is IBD.

This issue I had is with:

"inflammatory bowel disease -- disorders caused by an overactive immune system"

This is not leaving preconceived notions out, as you say, no this IS a preconceived notion, one that wasn't even supported by the article, even though the author had no issues throwing that in there for some reason.

You responded to my post, or not?

If you believe the above, you also believe that antibiotics don't work, that vitamin A doesn't work, that vitamin D doesn't work, that crohn patients react as fast to pathogens as normal people (they don't, proven), that crohn patients don't have more MAP or E Coli than controls (they do, proven), that NOD2 doesn't indicate an immune deficiency (it does, proven) etc.

Do you see where this article might be completely missing the ball? Or do you 100% agree with the article and can't see that my concern is valid when I question his claim that's completely unfounded, no proof given, contradicts with the article itself in many ways and ignores all the studies that show crohn might be an immune dificiency?

If the article would have said "crohn might be an overeactive immune system or might be an immune deficiency" I wouldn't have had any issues with it. But that's not what the writer did, he made a statement not based on any evidence, he doesn't support the argument and just throws it out there. Kinda like those people who still throw out there that crohn is an autoimmune-disease without proving it is at all, and ignoring that there are a bazillion and one studies that show it's not.
 
Don't let a few little words in an article make you so crazy that you can't take in the amazing information presented. (The picture alone is amazing.)
I neither agree nor disagree with the article as it isn't asking me to do either. It is a presentation of new information they have discovered about the finer mechanics of goblet cells.
The article doesn't make any claims about causes.
If you fly off in a huff about a few little words that bug you (because you have some fixed idea in your head which you think is being threatened) then you miss the prize!

I'll try to explain the prize for you again, so try to put all your fixed ideas aside for a moment:

Imagine someone who has a problem eating wheat protein. The person eats wheat and the protein gets absorbed through the mucosa and, suddenly an inflammatory response occurs. Is the protein actually dangerous or destructive? The article is about how and why that response might happen.

They use the word 'overactive' in the sense that it can be an unnecessary response. If I wrote the article I might use another word. And that's why I wrote "so-called overreaction..." in my post.

No need to go off on your M.A.P. rave all the time. It has nothing to do with this article or my clarification.
 
I really enjoyed the article. There are still so many unanswered questions but this sounds very promising. Thanks for posting!

Tiffany
 

kiny

Well-known member
The article doesn't make any claims about causes.
honestly, what?

""inflammatory bowel disease -- disorders caused by an overactive immune system"

that is what the article says, black on white, in the first sentence

And I do take issue with it, because if you followed Crohn's disease over the last decades, it's those EXACT things and blatant statements that caused the whole medical community to ignore the fact that crohn might be related to bacteria. 25 years they have ignored the bacterial connection, because of what one study said back then, 25 years they stuck with the notion that crohn was an autoinflammatory disease.

The study is fine, I never questioned the study, I said that what people write has an impact on people and when you you write that crohn is caused by an overeactive immune system and it's potentially wrong, and I point it out, black on white, don't try to correct me by diving around the issue and accusing me of being focused on MAP. The issue is that the author made a statement that is not proven, unfounded and contradicts parts of the article. That's the issue, and if you can't see it than that's your issue, not mine. I'm done responding.
 
I think the medical community is pretty clear they don't know what causes crohn's. But it could be an immune response to bacteria. Also, most of the medications we are prescribed (which have dramatically lowered the mortality rate) are in fact immune system suppressants. It certainly isn't for sure but it is the best information we have.
 
Kiny, I keep trying to help you understand that the article doesn't revolve around those few words that bug you so much.
It is really annoying when you keep hijacking threads with your personal fixated ideas.
 
It is interesting, even though no antigen for the antibodies has been found. The goblet cell antibodies appear to be directed against the mucin (part of mucus) produced by the intestinal goblet cells. The integrity of the mucosal barrier is extremely important.
Goblet cell antibodies may be a marker for susceptibility.

(If you want to plough through an interesting, and quite thorough article, which includes that subject:
http://ajpgi.physiology.org/content/295/6/G1139.full)
 
Top