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.

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.