IMMUNOLOGY TODAY

H uman biology is enormously

complex, as is the immune

response. Creating important

new information depends on

the increasingly difficult task of identifying

and integrating what is currently known.

The urgency of addressing these issue has

bxreased dramatically due to the progress

of the human genome project towards

defining the estimated 100000 genes, as

well as the advent of other ‘high-thmugh-

put’ biological techniques. It is essential to

find organizing strategies to take advan-

tage of this information, rather than make

researchers suffer hying to find infonna-

tion. On the basis of past experience, to-

gether with discussions with literally hun-

dreds of biologists over the past several

years. we have evolved a strategy.

The msounx we all building is called

PROW: Pmtein Reviews on the Web. Its

founding principles are summarized in

Bov 1. PROW has completed most of its

first objjive: making available on the

World Wide Web @VWW) short authorita-

tive ‘guides’ on the approximately 290

human CD celkzurface molecules (Box 2).

This PROW ‘pilot project’ has built upon tt.e

International Workshops on Human Leuke

cyte Differentiation Antigens (IWHLDA).

During the past 17 years, IWHLDA has

generated a tradition of cooperative cm-

ation among scientists in pmvidiig author-

itative information on human cell-surface

proteins. PROW aspires to expand :his

spirit to the creative assembly of infor-

mation on :hese and other

human protetns.

PROW guides are short,

-lOOO-word, structured reviews

that collate all available mfor-

mation o:, the molecule and,

importantly, are all peer-re-

viewed. Figure 1 illustrates the

first half the layout of a PROW

guide to CD127. The format

differs from conventional pub-

lishtd reviews in four critical

ways. First, PROW guides have

approximately 20 standardized

‘categories’ of information (bio-

chemical function, ligands,

etc.) in order to give readers

a standard layout to expect,

and to encourage authors to

be systematic in their approach

to describing the molecule.

Second, the facts in each

PROW category axe single sen-

tence/phrase entries, rather

than paragraphs. This encour-

ages brevity, and facilitates revi-

sion. Third, the format is opti-

mized for WWW presentation,

taking advantage of hypertext

links to provide details beyond

the scope of the short review format. For

example, it links to outstanding resources

such as SwissPmt, Mendelian Inheritance

in Man and Medline/Pubmed. Finally, in

each category, readers have the opportu-

nity to add comments (with citations),

WhtChWbdkW

subject

theEby creating a” accompanv.lg ‘forum’

pge. Although PROW is a shoestring oper-

ation, encouraging progress has been

made. The biggest source of satisfaction has

been the cooperation of the biologists writ-

ing and reviewing the guides and the qual-

ity of the conhibutions they have made.

One delightful outcome has been the sub-

stantial additions by reviewen, and the re-

suiting e-mail dialog between authors and

reviewers who were often previously unac-

quainted. We believe that support by biolo-

gists will be the most critical determinant of