Amoxicillin does not affect the development of cow’s milk allergy in a Brown Norway rat model

Impact of processing on the sensitising capacity and cross-reactivity of cow's and camel milk proteins in a Brown Norway rat study

Infant formulas based on hydrolysed cow's milk proteins are used when breastfeeding is not feasible in cow's milk allergic infants. Camel milk has been shown to be well-tolerated by the majority of children with cow's milk allergy (CMA) and may be a substitute in management of CMA. Here we aimed to evaluate the impact of processing on immunogenicity, sensitising, antibody-binding and cross-reactive capacity of cow's and camel milk. Cow's and camel milk were processed by means of enzyme hydrolysis or heat treatment. Brown Norway rats were immunised with PBS, non-processed, enzyme hydrolysed or heat-treated cow's or camel milk. In vivo tests were performed for evaluation of clinical signs. Blood and faecal samples were analysed for levels and specificity of antibody responses. Cow's and camel milk showed similar sensitising capacity. Processing decreased the sensitising capacity of cow's milk, yet only enzyme hydrolysis but not heat treatment decreased the sensitising capacity of camel milk. Processing affected the specificity of antibodies raised in the rats, though the effect differed between cow's and camel milk. The study showed a low cross-reactivity between cow's and camel milk, which was decreased with processing, suggesting that processing of camel milk may improve its usefulness in CMA management.

Allergenicity evaluation of quinoa proteins - A study in Brown Norway rats

The popularity of quinoa seeds has increased in the last decade due to their high nutritional value and natural gluten-free composition. Consumption of new proteins may pose a risk of introducing new allergies. In the present study the immunogenicity and sensitising capacity of quinoa proteins were assessed in a dose-response experiment in Brown Norway rats in comparison to proteins from spinach and peanut. Cross-reactivity between quinoa proteins and known allergens was evaluated by in silico analyses followed by analyses with 11 selected protein extracts and their anti-sera by means of ELISAs and immunoblotting. Further, an in vitro simulated gastro-duodenal digestion was performed. Quinoa proteins were found to have an inherent medium to high immunogenicity and sensitising capacity, being able to induce specific IgG1 and IgE levels higher than spinach but lower than peanut and elicit reactions of clinical relevance similar to peanut. Quinoa proteins were generally shown to resist digestion and retain capacity to bind quinoa-specific antibodies. Quinoa proteins were shown to be cross-reactive with peanut and tree nut allergens as high sequence homology and antibody cross-binding were demonstrated. Present study suggests that quinoa pose a medium to high level of allergenicity that should be further investigated in human studies.

Antibacterial and Immunoregulatory Effects of Metformin against Helicobacter pylori Infection in Rat Model

Introduction

Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) induces gastritis by stimulating Th17 cells and related cytokines. The aim of our study was to investigate the synergistic effect of metformin with amoxicillin as an antibiotic in inhibiting H. pylori and modulating the immune response in a rat model.

Methods

Forty-five male Sprague-Dawley rats were divided into seven groups and infected with H. pylori. Over the course of 14 days, all animals were treated with metformin and amoxicillin alone and in combination. The antibacterial activity of metformin was evaluated by growth curves and colony counts. The immunoregulatory effect on Treg/Th17 balance was assessed by flow cytometry, and the cytokine profile of IL-17A, IL-1β, IL-6, IL-8, TGF-β, and IL-10 was determined by ELISA. The effect of metformin on gene expression of cagA and IL-8 was investigated by RT-PCR. Pathological changes were assessed by hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining and immunohistochemical (IHC) staining.

Results

Metformin showed weak antibacterial activity against clinically isolated H. pylori. However, the combination of metformin and amoxicillin (AMX) showed strong synergistic antibacterial activity (ΣFIC = 0.24). Compared with AMX, metformin reduced inflammation and tissue damage but resulted in increased bacterial growth. During metformin administration, both TGF-β levels and Treg cells increased dramatically (P = 0.002). In synergy with AMX, metformin decreased the effective dose of antibiotic to eradicate H. pylori.

Conclusions

The combination of metformin with potential antibiotics such as AMX had a positive effect on the relief of H. pylori-related inflammation by inducing Treg cells while successfully eliminating H. pylori.

Dose and route of administration determine the efficacy of prophylactic immunotherapy for peanut allergy in a Brown Norway rat model

Introduction

Allergen-specific immunotherapy (IT) is emerging as a viable option for treatment of peanut allergy. Yet, prophylactic IT remains unexplored despite early introduction of peanut in infancy was shown to prevent allergy. There is a need to understand how allergens interact with the immune system depending on the route of administration, and how different dosages of allergen may protect from sensitisation and a clinical active allergy. Here we compared peanut allergen delivery via the oral, sublingual (SL), intragastric (IG) and subcutaneous (SC) routes for the prevention of peanut allergy in Brown Norway (BN) rats.

Methods

BN rats were administered PBS or three different doses of peanut protein extract (PPE) via either oral IT (OIT), SLIT, IGIT or SCIT followed by intraperitoneal (IP) injections of PPE to assess the protection from peanut sensitisation. The development of IgE and IgG1 responses to PPE and the major peanut allergens were evaluated by ELISAs. The clinical response to PPE was assessed by an ear swelling test (EST) and proliferation was assessed by stimulating splenocytes with PPE.

Results

Low and medium dose OIT (1 and 10 mg) and all doses of SCIT (1, 10, 100 µg) induced sensitisation to PPE, whereas high dose OIT (100 mg), SLIT (10, 100 or 1000 µg) or IGIT (1, 10 and 100 mg) did not. High dose OIT and SLIT as well as high and medium dose IGIT prevented sensitisation from the following IP injections of PPE and suppressed PPE-specific IgE levels in a dose-dependent manner. Hence, administration of peanut protein via different routes confers different risks for sensitisation and protection from peanut allergy development. Overall, the IgE levels toward the individual major peanut allergens followed the PPE-specific IgE levels.

Discussion

Collectively, this study showed that the preventive effect of allergen-specific IT is determined by the interplay between the specific site of PPE delivery for presentation to the immune system, and the allergen quantity, and that targeting and modulating tolerance mechanisms at specific mucosal sites may be a prophylactic strategy for prevention of peanut allergy.

Camel Milk Cannot Prevent the Development of Cow's Milk Allergy-A Study in Brown Norway Rats

SCOPE

Currently there are no specific recommendations for the use of any particular infant formula in the prevention of cow's milk allergy (CMA). Recently, there has been an increasing interest in alternative infant formulas based on milk proteins from other sources than the cow, including milk from other mammalians such as goat, sheep, donkey, horse, and camel. Whereas these have been studied for their usability in CMA management, there are no studies of their CMA preventive capacity. Thus, the aim of this study is to evaluate whether camel milk can prevent CMA and vice versa.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The capacity of camel milk in preventing CMA and vice versa is evaluated in a well-established prophylactic Brown Norway rat model. IgG1, IgE, and IgA responses, allergy elicitation, intestinal and mLN gene expression, and protein uptake are analyzed. The study demonstrates that camel and cow's milk in general has an insignificant cross-preventive capacity. Yet, whereas cow's milk is shown to have a low transient capacity to prevent sensitization and clinically active camel milk allergy, camel milk does not show this effect for CMA.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that due to lack of cross-tolerance camel milk cannot be used for CMA prevention.