National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark.
School of Food Science & Nutrition, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Front Immunol. 2023 Feb 23;14:1121497. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1121497. eCollection 2023.
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 the oral, sublingual (SL), intragastric (IG) and subcutaneous (SC) routes for the prevention of peanut allergy in Brown Norway (BN) rats.
BN rats were administered PBS or three different doses of peanut protein extract (PPE) 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.
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 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.
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.
变应原特异性免疫疗法(AIT)作为治疗花生过敏的一种可行选择正在出现。然而,尽管早期引入花生可预防过敏,但预防性 AIT 仍未得到探索。我们需要了解过敏原如何根据给药途径与免疫系统相互作用,以及不同剂量的过敏原如何预防致敏和临床活性过敏。在这里,我们比较了花生过敏原经口服、舌下(SL)、胃内(IG)和皮下(SC)途径给药在预防褐家鼠(BN)花生过敏中的作用。
BN 大鼠给予 PBS 或三种不同剂量的花生蛋白提取物(PPE),分别进行口服免疫治疗(OIT)、SLIT、IGIT 或 SCIT,随后进行 PPE 的腹腔内(IP)注射,以评估对花生致敏的保护作用。通过 ELISA 评估对 PPE 和主要花生过敏原的 IgE 和 IgG1 反应。通过耳肿胀试验(EST)评估对 PPE 的临床反应,并通过刺激脾细胞与 PPE 评估增殖。
低剂量和中剂量 OIT(1 和 10 mg)和所有剂量的 SCIT(1、10、100 µg)诱导了对 PPE 的致敏,而高剂量 OIT(100 mg)、SLIT(10、100 或 1000 µg)或 IGIT(1、10 和 100 mg)则没有。高剂量 OIT 和 SLIT 以及高剂量和中剂量 IGIT 预防了随后 PPE 的 IP 注射引起的致敏,并以剂量依赖的方式抑制了 PPE 特异性 IgE 水平。因此,过敏原蛋白经不同途径给药会导致不同的致敏风险和预防花生过敏发展的保护作用。总体而言,针对个别主要花生过敏原的 IgE 水平遵循 PPE 特异性 IgE 水平。
总的来说,这项研究表明,AIT 的预防效果取决于 PPE 给药的特定部位与免疫系统相互作用,以及过敏原数量,并且靶向和调节特定黏膜部位的耐受机制可能是预防花生过敏的一种策略。