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.

The role of skin inflammation, barrier dysfunction, and oral tolerance in skin sensitization to gluten-derived hydrolysates in a rat model.

BACKGROUND: Adverse reactions to wheat-containing skin care products have been linked to food allergy development. OBJECTIVES: To determine the role of skin barrier dysfunction and inflammation in sensitization to gluten-derived hydrolysates via the skin in Brown Norway rats with and without oral tolerance to wheat. METHODS: Skin barrier defect was induced by mechanical disruption, and skin inflammation was induced by topical application of SLS or MC903. Unmodified, enzyme hydrolyzed, or acid hydrolyzed gluten products were applied to the skin three times per week for 5 weeks. Subsequently, rats were orally gavaged with unmodified gluten. RESULTS: Wheat-naïve rats were readily sensitized to gluten hydrolysates via the skin. Skin barrier defect and skin inflammation had little effect on the skin sensitization and hydrolysate-specific IgE levels. Oral administration of unmodified gluten promoted the production of unmodified gluten-specific IgE in rats sensitized via the skin. Sensitization through intact skin, disrupted skin barrier, or inflamed skin was unable to break tolerance to unmodified gluten in rats on a wheat-containing diet. CONCLUSIONS: Mechanical skin barrier disruption and skin inflammation play a limited role in experimental skin sensitization to gluten-derived hydrolysates.

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.