4.7 Article

Immunogenic properties of rapidly digested food proteins following gavage exposure of mice: a comparison of ovalbumin with a potato acid phosphatase preparation

期刊

FOOD AND CHEMICAL TOXICOLOGY
卷 40, 期 5, 页码 625-633

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0278-6915(01)00132-6

关键词

protein allergenicity; digestibility; IgE; IgG; oral exposures; systemic exposure

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The ability of food proteins to resist digestion in simulated gastric fluid (SGF) correlates with allergenic potential. The purpose of the current investigations was to determine whether this association is due solely to the failure of Unstable proteins to elicit an immune response when administered orally. We have examined immune responses induced in BALB/c mice by gavage administration of ovalbumin (OVA) and a crude potato protein extract (PPE) containing acid phosphatase activity. The stability of OVA and PPE in SGF was measured using sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS)-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis. The ability of these proteins to stimulate specific IgG and IgE antibody production in mice following parenteral (intraperitoneal: ip) or oral (gavage) exposure was compared using enzyme-linked immunosorbent and homologous passive cutaneous anaphylaxis assays, respectively. Both OVA and PPE induced specific IgG antibody responses hen administered either by gavage or by ip injection. Parenteral, but not gavage. exposure to OVA was associated with robust IgE antibody responses. Administration of PPE failed to stimulate strong IgE production via either route of exposure. Differential stability in SGF was observed, with PPE being digested extremely rapidly (within 1 min), whereas OVA was more resistant, The strong association reported by others between stability in SGF and allergenic potential is unlikely to be solely due to orally-ingested labile proteins failing to provoke immune responses due to degradation in the stomach. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

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