Production of allergen-specific immunotherapeutic agents for the treatment of food allergy.

Allergen-specific immunotherapy (IT) is emerging as a viable avenue for the treatment of food allergies. Clinical trials currently investigate raw or slightly processed foods as therapeutic agents, as trials using food-grade agents can be performed without the strict regulations to which conventional drugs are subjected. However, this limits the ability of standardization and may affect clinical trial outcomes and reproducibility. Herein, we provide an overview of methods used in the production of immunotherapeutic agents for the treatment of food allergies, including processed foods, allergen extracts, recombinant allergens, and synthetic peptides, as well as the physical and chemical processes for the reduction of protein allergenicity. Commercial interests currently favor producing standardized drug-grade allergen extracts for therapeutic use, and clinical trials are ongoing. In the near future, recombinant production could replace purification strategies since it allows the manufacturing of pure, native allergens or sequence-modified allergens with reduced allergenicity. A recurring issue within this field is the inadequate reporting of production procedures, quality control, product physicochemical characteristics, allergenicity, and immunological properties. This information is of vital importance in assessing therapeutic standardization and clinical safety profile, which are central parameters for the development of future therapeutic agents.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Novel foods: allergenicity assessment of insect proteins.

Insects represent a promising source of proteins and have been reported as a great potential for being used as novel food and feed proteins. This makes them a valuable source of nutrients to face the increasing demand of food necessitated by the growing global population. The current European food legislation on novel food (EU Reg. 2015/2283), which entered into force in 2018, provides the provisions that should be considered in the applications for the authorisation of novel foods in the European market. Insects, intended as an alternative source of food proteins for human consumption, are considered novel foods. Since food allergens are mostly proteins, the analysis and identification of the potential allergenicity of novel proteins should be a fundamental activity that enables the applicants to fulfil the requirements for the application and authorisation to bring a novel food into the European market and ensures a high level of food safety for the European consumers. The main aims of the work of the EU-FORA fellow were to: (i) Review, assess and identify gaps in the current strategies for predicting allergenicity of novel foods and new alternative protein sources; and (ii) Familiarise, understand and perform an allergenicity assessment of a novel food protein source by: (a) Working on an allergenicity assessment case study of insect proteins from black soldier fly larva (Hermetia Illucens); and (b) Taking into consideration other risk assessment aspects of insects as novel food, including toxicological, nutritional and microbial risks. The project contributed to the continuous learning of the fellow on practical assays and methodologies for the in silico, in vitro and in vivo analysis principles and complemented personal skills related to the food risk assessment requirement for the preparation and submission of an application for authorisation of a novel food.

Alternatives to Cow's Milk-Based Infant Formulas in the Prevention and Management of Cow's Milk Allergy.

Cow's milk-based infant formulas are the most common substitute to mother's milk in infancy when breastfeeding is impossible or insufficient, as cow's milk is a globally available source of mammalian proteins with high nutritional value. However, cow's milk allergy (CMA) is the most prevalent type of food allergy among infants, affecting up to 3.8% of small children. Hypoallergenic infant formulas based on hydrolysed cow's milk proteins are commercially available for the management of CMA. Yet, there is a growing demand for more options for infant feeding, both in general but especially for the prevention and management of CMA. Milk from other mammalian sources than the cow, such as goat, sheep, camel, donkey, and horse, has received some attention in the last decade due to the different protein composition profile and protein amino acid sequences, resulting in a potentially low cross-reactivity with cow's milk proteins. Recently, proteins from plant sources, such as potato, lentil, chickpeas, quinoa, in addition to soy and rice, have gained increased interest due to their climate friendly and vegan status as well as potential lower allergenicity. In this review, we provide an overview of current and potential future infant formulas and their relevance in CMA prevention and management.

Comparison of the Allergenicity and Immunogenicity of Camel and Cow's Milk-A Study in Brown Norway Rats.

BACKGROUND: When breastfeeding is impossible or insufficient, the use of cow's milk-based hypoallergenic infant formulas is an option for infants suffering from or at risk of developing cow's milk allergy. As the Camelidae family has a large evolutionary distance to the Bovidae family and as camel milk differs from cow's milk protein composition, there is a growing interest in investigating the suitability of camel milk as an alternative to cow's milk-based hypoallergenic infant formulas. METHODS: The aim of the study was to compare the allergenicity and immunogenicity of camel and cow's milk as well as investigating their cross-reactivity using a Brown Norway rat model. Rats were immunised intraperitoneally with one of four products: camel milk, cow's milk, cow's milk casein or cow's milk whey fraction. Immunogenicity, sensitising capacity, antibody avidity and cross-reactivity were evaluated by means of different ELISAs. The eliciting capacity was evaluated by an ear swelling test. RESULTS: Camel and cow's milk showed similarity in their inherent immunogenicity, sensitising and eliciting capacity. Results show that there was a lower cross-reactivity between caseins than between whey proteins from camel and cow's milk. CONCLUSIONS: The study showed that camel and cow's milk have a low cross-reactivity, indicating a low protein similarity. Results demonstrate that camel milk could be a promising alternative to cow's milk-based hypoallergenic infant formulas.