Threshold Dose for Shrimp: A Risk Characterization Based on Objective Reactions in Clinical Studies

A DBPCFC [double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge] of shrimp-allergic adults was conducted to obtain individual threshold doses. Results of this study and published research were combined and a population threshold for shrimp was determined from dose-distribution modeling. The shrimp-allergic population seems to have a higher threshold compared to other populations for other food allergens. Additional shrimp challenges should be done to confirm these initial results

Taxonomy of Pfiesteria (Dinophyceae)

The dinoflagellate species originally described as Pfiesteria shumwayae Glasgow et Burkholder, recently transferred to a new genus, Pseudopfiesteria Litaker et al., is reclassified into the redefined genus Pfiesteria Steidinger et Burkholder, as Pfiesteria shumwayae within the order Peridiniales. This change is based upon consideration of a compilation of previous and new morphological analyses and molecular phylogenetic analyses. Morphological analysis with scanning and transmission electron microscopy supports previous findings except in the sulcal area. In the cells examined, the sulcus is partly concealed by the peduncle cover plate (p.c.), which originates at the right side of the sulcus along the left side of the 6c and 5? plates. The fine structure of the p.c. appears similar to that of other thecal plates. The 1? plate can also extend slightly over the sulcus. Transmission electron microscopy revealed that Pfiesteria shumwayae can have at least six sulcal plates; the number remains uncertain and may vary. The sulcal plates of this small, delicately thecate species have not been clearly discerned by scanning electron microscopy of membrane-stripped and/or suture-swollen cells. The Kofoidian thecal plate formula for the genus Pfiesteria is Po, cp, X, 4', la, 5–6?, 6c, p.c., ?s, 5?, 0p, 2?'. The monophyletic grouping of ?pfiesteria-like? taxa within the order Peridiniales, as well as the grouping of Pfiesteria piscicida and Pfiesteria shumwayae within the same genus, is also supported by the preponderance of previous molecular evidence, and by the phylogenetic trees contributed in the present analysis. Pfiesteria appears to be closely related to as-yet informally described cryptoperidiniopsoids and calcareous dinoflagellates such as Thoracosphaera; thus, the family classification requires revision that is beyond the scope of this study

Evaluating the efficacy of independent versus simultaneous management strategies to address ecological and genetic threats to population viability

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank Sue Bignal, all land-owners and farmers and everyone who helped with fieldwork on Islay. We thank members of the Scottish Chough Forum, particularly Rae Mckenzie and Des Thompson for valuable input on management scenarios. AET was funded by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) and Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. SRF was funded by a Natural Environment Research Council iCASE studentship supported by SNH.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Updated full range of Eliciting Dose values for Cow’s milk for use in food allergen risk assessment

Access to Eliciting Doses (ED) for allergens enables advanced food allergen risk assessment. Previously, the full ED range for 14 allergenic foods, including milk, and recommendations for their use were provided (Houben et al., 2020). Additional food challenge studies with cow’s milk-allergic patients added 247 data points to the original dataset. Using the Stacked Model Averaging statistical method for interval-censored data on the 697 individual NOAELs and LOAELs for milk generated an updated full ED distribution. The ED01 and ED05, the doses at which 1% and 5% of the milk-allergic population would be predicted to experience any objective allergic reaction, were 0.3 and 3.2 mg milk protein for the discrete and 0.4 mg and 4.3 mg milk protein for the cumulative dose distribution, respectively. These values are slightly higher but remain within the 95% confidence interval of previously published EDs. We recommend using the updated EDs for future characterization of risks of exposure of milk-allergic individuals to milk protein. This paper contributes to the discussion on the Reference Dose for milk in the recent Ad hoc Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Risk Assessment of Food Allergens. It will also benefit harmonization of food allergen risk assessment and risk management globally