4.7 Article

IgE in the diagnosis and treatment of allergic disease

期刊

JOURNAL OF ALLERGY AND CLINICAL IMMUNOLOGY
卷 137, 期 6, 页码 1662-1670

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2016.04.010

关键词

Asthma; allergen particles; IgE antibodies; eosinophilic esophagitis; alpha-gal; IgG(4)

资金

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [R01 AI020565, R37 AI020565, R56 AI113095] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Traditionally, the concept of allergy implied an abnormal response to an otherwise benign agent (eg, pollen or food), with an easily identifiable relationship between exposure and disease. However, there are syndromes in which the relationship between exposure to the relevant allergen and the ``allergic'' disease is not clear. In these cases the presence of specific IgE antibodies can play an important role in identifying the relevant allergen and provide a guide to therapy. Good examples include chronic asthma and exposure to perennial indoor allergens and asthma related to fungal infection. Finally, we are increasingly aware of forms of food allergy in which the relationship between exposure and the disease is delayed by 3 to 6 hours or longer. Three forms of food allergy with distinct clinical features are now well recognized. These are (1) anaphylactic sensitivity to peanut, (2) eosinophilic esophagitis related to cow's milk, and (3) delayed anaphylaxis to red meat. In these syndromes the immunology of the response is dramatically different. Peanut and galactose alpha-1,3-galactose (alpha-gal) are characterized by high- or very high- titer IgE antibodies for Ara h 2 and alpha-gal, respectively. By contrast, eosinophilic esophagitis is characterized by low levels of IgE specific for milk proteins with high- or very high- titer IgG(4) to the same proteins. The recent finding is that patients with alpha-gal syndrome do not have detectable IgG(4) to the oligosaccharide. Thus the serum results not only identify relevant antigens but also provide a guide to the nature of the immune response.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据