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

Current challenges facing the assessment of the allergenic capacity of food allergens in animal models

Food allergy is a major health problem of increasing concern. The insufficiency of protein sources for human nutrition in a world with a growing population is also a significant problem. The introduction of new protein sources into the diet, such as newly developed innovative foods or foods produced using new technologies and production processes, insects, algae, duckweed, or agricultural products from third countries, creates the opportunity for development of new food allergies, and this in turn has driven the need to develop test methods capable of characterizing the allergenic potential of novel food proteins. There is no doubt that robust and reliable animal models for the identification and characterization of food allergens would be valuable tools for safety assessment. However, although various animal models have been proposed for this purpose, to date, none have been formally validated as predictive and none are currently suitable to test the allergenic potential of new foods. Here, the design of various animal models are reviewed, including among others considerations of species and strain, diet, route of administration, dose and formulation of the test protein, relevant controls and endpoints measured

Allergic sensitization: screening methods

Experimental in silico, in vitro, and rodent models for screening and predicting protein sensitizing potential are discussed, including whether there is evidence of new sensitizations and allergies since the introduction of genetically modified crops in 1996, the importance of linear versus conformational epitopes, and protein families that become allergens. Some common challenges for predicting protein sensitization are addressed: (a) exposure routes; (b) frequency and dose of exposure; (c) dose-response relationships; (d) role of digestion, food processing, and the food matrix; (e) role of infection; (f) role of the gut microbiota; (g) influence of the structure and physicochemical properties of the protein; and (h) the genetic background and physiology of consumers. The consensus view is that sensitization screening models are not yet validated to definitively predict the de novo sensitizing potential of a novel protein. However, they would be extremely useful in the discovery and research phases of understanding the mechanisms of food allergy development, and may prove fruitful to provide information regarding potential allergenicity risk assessment of future products on a case by case basis. These data and findings were presented at a 2012 international symposium in Prague organized by the Protein Allergenicity Technical Committee of the International Life Sciences Institute’s Health and Environmental Sciences Institute