2026 年 4 月 16 日，免疫学者 Daniel Davis 在 WIRED Health 中指出，先进显微镜使人类免疫系统在 nanoscale 尺度上首次被直接观察，揭示先前不可见的机制；他将这种可视化称为对免疫系统理解的根本转向。文章同时提到研究现场在 2026 年 4 月 30 日发布，补充说明该视角已促使对机制性互动的重新解读。
Davis 描述，免疫细胞在与其他细胞接触的第一瞬间，会产生纳米级突起并做出「健康或发病」判断；在此基础上，与 Bristol Myers Squibb 合作的实验室测试改造抗体，透过调整关键蛋白相对位置以加强免疫讯号，概念上可提升癌细胞杀伤能力。这类策略仍属早期阶段，但若成功，可能进一步扩展至自体免疫疾病的有害细胞清除；他同时指出目前仍是多路平行下注，尚无确定最佳靶点。
Davis 强调免疫基因是人类变异最大的基因族群之一，解释了同感染反应的个体差异，因此“精准个体化”免疫治疗仍未成熟。就一般健康建议而言，他警告避免听信宣传口号，例如果汁般流行的维他命 C 抗感冒说法，其效果被认为很小，且被认为存在选择性证据报告的问题；同样地，Hans Selye 的压力研究虽揭示压力对身体有实际影响，但后续资金来源争议（包括烟草产业）提醒研究需可验证。
On April 16, 2026, immunologist Daniel Davis presented at WIRED Health that advanced microscopes now let scientists see the human immune system at a nanoscale level, revealing dynamics that were previously invisible and reshaping current understanding. The context is framed by the original publication date of April 30, 2026, and highlights how direct observation is uncovering mechanisms that had not been predicted by prior hypotheses.
Davis described how, when an immune cell contacts another cell, nanoscale protrusions form to assess whether the target is healthy or diseased; in this light, his group’s collaboration with Bristol Myers Squibb is testing reengineered antibodies that physically bring signaling proteins closer on immune cells, strengthening activation and potentially improving cancer-cell killing. The approach is also envisioned for autoimmune contexts, but remains early-stage and exploratory: many startup variants exist, and researchers currently have no consensus on which surface molecules to prioritize.
He also emphasized that immune-system genes show high human variability, which helps explain why people react differently to the same infection and why truly personalized immune treatment is not yet clinically routine. Davis cautioned against simplistic immune-health claims, citing limited evidence for vitamin C cold prevention and noting that despite Linus Pauling’s two Nobel Prizes, interpretations can still be selective. He used the example of Hans Selye, often called the father of stress research, whose stress findings were important yet later linked to funding links with tobacco, reinforcing the need for skeptical evidence review.