Cytokine Detection and Modulation in Acute Graft vs. Host Disease in Mice

A murine model for acute lethal graft vs. host disease (GVHD) was used to study the role that a number of cytokines play in the development of lethal GVHD. In this study we focused on the role of IL-1, IL-2, IL-4, IL-6, IFN-γ and TNF-α. Lethally irradiated (C57BL × CBA)F1 mice were reconstituted either with 107 allogeneic BALB/c spleen cells or with a similar number of syngeneic cells, as a control. A significant rise in serum levels of IL-6, TNF-α and IFN-γ levels was found in allogeneically reconstituted mice. This is in contrast to the syngeneic control group in which no rise was seen. Serum IL-2 and IL-4 levels were below the detection limit. In the supernatant of Con A stimulated spleen cells from allogeneically reconstituted mice IL-6, IFN-γ and TNF-α concentrations were increased. The expression of mRNA for cytokines as detected by reverse transcription PCR was studied in spleen cells. In the allogeneic reconstituted mice the mRNA expression of IL-1α, IL-2, IL-6, IFN-γ and TNF-α displayed faster kinetics compared with that in syngeneic reconstituted mice. The effect of treatment with recombinant cytokines, antibodies to cytokines and to cytokine receptors on the development of GVHD was investigated. Administration of recombinant IL-2 to allogeneically reconstituted mice strongly increased the morbidity and mortality whereas injection of IL-1α and TNF-α did not influence survival. Administration of antibodies against IL-2 or the IL-2 receptor decreased the morbidity and mortality. Anti-IL-6, anti-IFN-γ, and anti-TNF-α mAB, on the other hand, did not affect the morbidity and mortality of GVHD. The results of this study suggest successive waves of cytokine-secreting cell populations consistent with the induction of an inflammatory response in the development of acute GVH disease

Clinical relevance of sensitization to lupine in peanut-sensitized adults

Background: The use of lupine in food has been increasing during the last decade and allergic reactions to lupine have been reported, especially in peanut-allergic patients. The frequency and the degree of cross-reactivity to other legumes are not known. The aim of the study was to investigate the frequency of sensitization to lupine, and in addition to pea and soy, and its clinical relevance, in peanutsensitized patients. Furthermore, to determine the eliciting dose (ED) for lupine using double-blind placebo-controlled food challenges (DBPCFC). Methods: Thirty-nine unselected peanut-sensitized patients were evaluated by skin prick tests (SPT) and ImmunoCAP to lupine, pea, and soy. Clinical reactivity was measured by DBPCFC for lupine, and by history for pea and soy. Results: Eighty-two percent of the study population was sensitized to lupine, 55% to pea, and 87% to soy. Clinically relevant sensitization to lupine, pea, or soy occurred in 35%, 29%, and 33% respectively of the study population. None of the patients was aware of the use of lupine in food. The lowest ED for lupine, inducing mild subjective symptoms, was 0.5 mg, and the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) was 0.1 mg. No predictive factors for lupine allergy were found. Conclusion: In peanut-sensitized patients, clinically relevant sensitization to either lupine or to pea or soy occurs frequently. The ED for lupine is low (0.5 mg), which is only five fold higher than for peanut. Patients are not aware of lupine allergy and the presence of lupine in food, indicating that education is important to build awareness

Lupine Allergy: Not Simply Cross-Reactivity with Peanut or Soy

Background: Reports of lupine allergy are increasing as its use in food products increases. Lupine allergy might be the consequence of cross-reactivity after sensitization to peanut or other legumes or de novo sensitization. Lupine allergens have not been completely characterized. Objectives: We sought to identify allergens associated with lupine allergy, evaluate potential cross-reactivity with peanut, and determine eliciting doses (EDs) for lupine allergy by using double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges. Methods: Six patients with a history of allergic reactions to lupine flour were evaluated by using skin prick tests, CAP tests, and double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges. Three of these patients were also allergic to peanut. Lupine allergens were characterized by means of IgE immunoblotting and peptide sequencing. Results: In all 6 patients the ED for lupine flour was 3 mg or less for subjective symptoms and 300 mg or more for objective symptoms. The low ED and moderate-to-severe historical symptoms indicate significant allergenicity of lupine flour. Two patients allergic to lupine but not to peanut displayed IgE binding predominantly to approximately 66-kd proteins and weak binding to 14- and 24-kd proteins, whereas patients with peanut allergy and lupine allergy showed weak binding to lupine proteins of about 14 to 21 or 66 kd. Inhibition of binding was primarily species specific. Conclusion: Lupine allergy can occur either separately or together with peanut allergy, as demonstrated by 3 patients who are cosensitized to peanut and lupine. Clinical implications: Lupine flour is allergenic and potentially cross-reactive with peanut allergen, thus posing some risk if used as a replacement for soy flour

Pathways and Management of Phosphorus in urban areas

Due to the finite nature of mineral phosphorus reserves, effective management of anthropogenic phosphorus flows is currently under investigation by the international research community. This article emphasizes the importance of urban phosphorus flows, which are often marginalized due to the greater magnitude of agricultural phosphorus flows. A study on phosphorus flows in Gothenburg, Sweden, points out the potential role of solid waste in nutrient management, as the amounts of phosphorus in solid waste and in wastewater were found to be equal. Importation of food commodities accounts for 50% of the total inflow of phosphorus, and food waste is a major contributor of phosphorus to solid waste. The results suggest that solid waste incineration residues represent a large underestimated sink of phosphorus. Focusing on wastewater as the sole source of recovered phosphorus is not sufficient. The Swedish national goal on phosphorus recycling, which is limited to sewage sludge, targets only a part of the total phosphorus flow that can potentially be recovered. In contrast to previous studies, agricultural flows in Gothenburg were marginal compared to flows related to the urban waste management infrastructure. We emphasize the need for debate on preferable routes for disposal of waste with a high phosphorus content. Both recovery potential and usefulness of the recovered product for agricultural purposes have to be considered. Impacts of five waste management strategies on phosphorus flows were evaluated: incineration of all the waste, comprehensive food waste separation, installation of kitchen grinders, urine diversion, and separation of blackwater and food waste

Food allergy in the Netherlands: differences in clinical severity, causative foods, sensitization and DBPCFC between community and outpatients

Background: It is unknown whether food allergy (FA) in an unselected population is comparable to those from an outpatient clinic population. Objective: To discover if FA in a random sample from the Dutch community is comparable to that of outpatients. Methods: This study was part of the Europrevall-project. A random sample of 6600 adults received a questionnaire. Those with symptoms to one of 24 defined priority foods were tested for sΙgE. Participants with a positive case history and elevated sIgE were evaluated by double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC). Outpatients with a suspicion of FA were evaluated by questionnaire, sIgE and DBPCFC. Results: In the community, severe symptoms were reported less often than in outpatients (39.3% vs. 54.3%). Participants in the community were less commonly sensitized to any of the foods. When selecting only those with a probable FA (i.e. symptoms of priority food and elevation of sIgE to the respective food), no major differences were observed with respect to severity, causative foods, sensitization and DBPCFC between the groups. Conclusion: In the Netherlands, there are large differences in self-reported FA between community and outpatients. However, Dutch community and outpatients with a probable FA do not differ with respect to severity, causative foods, sensitization and DBPCFC-outcome

Development of ranking system for higher education of Ukraine

A system of determination of university ranking in Ukraine was developed based on the creation of the corresponding methods adequate to the structure, peculiarities and conditions of the Ukrainian universities functioning. A complex of organizational and program-technical means was proposed for collection of the necessary data and determination of university rankings. For specialists in the field of higher education management, those seeking for higher education and employers.Разработана система определения рейтингов университетов Украины, которая основывается на создании определенной методики, адекватной структуре, особенностям и условиям функционирования отечественной высшей школы. Предложен комплекс организационных и программно-технических средств, который применяется при сборе данных и определении оценок рейтингов университетов для специалистов в области управления высшим образованием, а также желающих получить образование и работодателей.Розроблено систему визначення рейтингів університетів України, яка ґрунтується на створенні відповідної методики, адекватної до структури, особливостей та умов функціонування вітчизняної вищої школи. Запропоновано комплекс організаційних і програмно-технічних засобів, що застосовується при збиранні даних та визначенні оцінок рейтингів університетів для фахівців у галузі управління вищою освітою, а також бажаючих отримати освіту та роботодавців

Peanut Can Be Used as a Reference Allergen for Hazard Characterization in Food Allergen Risk Management: A Rapid Evidence Assessment and Meta-Analysis

Regional and national legislation mandates the disclosure of “priority” allergens when present as an ingredient in foods, but this does not extend to the unintended presence of allergens due to shared production facilities. This has resulted in a proliferation of precautionary allergen (“may contain”) labels (PAL) that are frequently ignored by food-allergic consumers. Attempts have been made to improve allergen risk management to better inform the use of PAL, but a lack of consensus has led to variety of regulatory approaches and nonuniformity in the use of PAL by food businesses. One potential solution would be to establish internationally agreed “reference doses,” below which no PAL would be needed. However, if reference doses are to be used to inform the need for PAL, then it is essential to characterize the hazard associated with these low-level exposures. For peanut, there are now published data relating to over 3000 double-blind, placebo-controlled challenges in allergic individuals, but a similar level of evidence is lacking for other priority allergens. We present the results of a rapid evidence assessment and meta-analysis for the risk of anaphylaxis to a low-level allergen exposure for priority allergens. On the basis of this analysis, we propose that peanut can and should be considered an exemplar allergen for the hazard characterization at a low-level allergen exposure. Resumen: La legislación regional y nacional exige la divulgación de alérgenos "prioritarios" cuando están presentes como ingrediente en los alimentos, pero esto no se extiende a la presencia involuntaria de alérgenos debido a instalaciones de producción compartidas. Esto ha dado lugar a una proliferación de etiquetas de precaución para alérgenos ("pueden contener") (PAL) que los consumidores alérgicos a los alimentos suelen ignorar. Se han hecho intentos para mejorar la gestión del riesgo de alérgenos para informar mejor el uso de PAL, pero la falta de consenso ha llevado a una variedad de enfoques regulatorios y a la falta de uniformidad en el uso de PAL por parte de las empresas alimentarias. Una posible solución sería establecer “dosis de referencia” acordadas internacionalmente, por debajo de las cuales no se necesitaría PAL. Sin embargo, si se van a utilizar dosis de referencia para informar la necesidad de PAL, entonces es esencial caracterizar el peligro asociado con estas exposiciones de bajo nivel. Para el maní, ahora hay datos publicados relacionados con más de 3000 desafíos doble ciego controlados por placebo en individuos alérgicos, pero falta un nivel similar de evidencia para otros alérgenos prioritarios. Presentamos los resultados de una evaluación rápida de la evidencia y un metanálisis del riesgo deanafilaxia a una exposición a alérgenos de bajo nivel para alérgenos prioritarios. Sobre la base de este análisis, proponemos que el cacahuete puede y debe considerarse un alérgeno ejemplar para la caracterización del peligro en una exposición a un alérgeno de bajo nivel.Instituto de Investigación de Tecnología de AlimentosFil: Turner, Paul J. Imperial College London. Instituto Nacional del Corazón y los Pulmones; Reino Unido.Fil: Patel, Nandinee. Imperial College London. Instituto Nacional del Corazón y los Pulmones; Reino Unido.Fil: Ballmer-Weber, Barbara K. Imperial College London. Instituto Nacional del Corazón y los Pulmones; Reino Unido.Fil: Ballmer-Weber, Barbara K. Clínica de Dermatología y Alergología. Kantonsspital; Suiza.Fil: Baumert, Joe L. Imperial College London. Instituto Nacional del Corazón y los Pulmones; Reino Unido.Fil: Blom, W. Marty. Imperial College London. Instituto Nacional del Corazón y los Pulmones; Reino Unido.Fil: Brooke-Taylor, Simon. Imperial College London. Instituto Nacional del Corazón y los Pulmones; Reino Unido.Fil: Brough, Helen. Imperial College London. Instituto Nacional del Corazón y los Pulmones; Reino Unido.Fil: Brough, Helen. King's College London. Departamento de Alergia Pediátrica; Reino Unido.Fil: Campbell, Dianne E. Imperial College London. Instituto Nacional del Corazón y los Pulmones; Reino Unido.Fil: Campbell, Dianne E. Tecnologías DBV. Montrouge; Francia.Fil: Chen, Hongbing. Imperial College London. Instituto Nacional del Corazón y los Pulmones; Reino Unido.Fil: Chinthrajah, R. Sharon. Imperial College London. Instituto Nacional del Corazón y los Pulmones; Reino Unido.Fil: Crevel, René W.R. Imperial College London. Instituto Nacional del Corazón y los Pulmones; Reino Unido.Fil: Dubois, Anthony E.J. Imperial College London. Instituto Nacional del Corazón y los Pulmones; Reino Unido.Fil: Ebisawa, Motohiro. Imperial College London. Instituto Nacional del Corazón y los Pulmones; Reino Unido.Fil: Elizur, Arnon. Imperial College London. Instituto Nacional del Corazón y los Pulmones; Reino Unido.Fil: Elizur, Arnon. Universidad de Tel Aviv. Facultad de Medicina Sackler. Departamento de Pediatría; Israel.Fil: Gerdts, Jennifer D. Imperial College London. Instituto Nacional del Corazón y los Pulmones; Reino Unido.Fil: Gowland, M. Hazel. Imperial College London. Instituto Nacional del Corazón y los Pulmones; Reino Unido.Fil: Houben, Geert F. Imperial College London. Instituto Nacional del Corazón y los Pulmones; Reino Unido.Fil: Hourihane, Jonathan O.B. Imperial College London. Instituto Nacional del Corazón y los Pulmones; Reino Unido.Fil: Knulst, André C. Imperial College London. Instituto Nacional del Corazón y los Pulmones; Reino Unido.Fil: La Vieille, Sébastien. Imperial College London. Instituto Nacional del Corazón y los Pulmones; Reino Unido.Fil: López, María Cristina. Imperial College London. Instituto Nacional del Corazón y los Pulmones; Reino Unido.Fil: Mills, E.N. Clare. Imperial College London. Instituto Nacional del Corazón y los Pulmones; Reino Unido.Fil: Polenta, Gustavo Alberto. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Investigación Tecnología de Alimentos; Argentina.Fil: Polenta, Gustavo Alberto. Imperial College London. Instituto Nacional del Corazón y los Pulmones; Reino Unido.Fil: Purington, Natasha. Imperial College London. Instituto Nacional del Corazón y los Pulmones; Reino Unido.Fil: Said, María. Imperial College London. Instituto Nacional del Corazón y los Pulmones; Reino Unido.Fil: Sampson, Hugh A. Imperial College London. Instituto Nacional del Corazón y los Pulmones; Reino Unido.Fil: Sampson, Hugh A. Escuela de Medicina Icahn. División de Alergia e Inmunología Pediátricasen. Nueva York. Estados Unidos de América.Fil: Schnadt, Sabine. Imperial College London. Instituto Nacional del Corazón y los Pulmones; Reino Unido.Fil: Södergren, Eva. Imperial College London. Instituto Nacional del Corazón y los Pulmones; Reino Unido.Fil: Södergren, Eva. ThermoFisher Scientific; Suecia.Fil: Taylor, Stephen L. Imperial College London. Instituto Nacional del Corazón y los Pulmones; Reino Unido.Fil: Remington, Benjamin C. Imperial College London. Instituto Nacional del Corazón y los Pulmones; Reino Unido.Fil: Remington, Benjamin C. Grupo BV. Consultoría Remington; Holanda