4.3 Article

The anti-allergic effects of lactic acid bacteria are strain dependent and mediated by effects on both Th1/Th2 cytokine expression and balance

期刊

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000081305

关键词

lactic acid bacteria; IgE; Th1; Th2; Lactobacillus paracasei strain KW3110

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: There is growing interest in the immune-stimulating effect and in particular, the anti-allergic effect, of lactic acid bacteria (LAB). However, no comprehensive studies have been done that compare the immune-stimulating potential of LAB strains. Methods: The in vitro immune-stimulating effects on Th1/Th2 balance of more than 100 LAB strains were compared in splenocytes from ovalbumin-sensitized Th2-polarized mice. The in vivo anti-allergic ability of strain KW3110 was studied in the Th2-polarized model by detecting serum IgE concentration, Th1/Th2 cytokine secretion from splenocytes, and the expression of co-stimulatory molecules on macrophages. Results: In vitro studies from Th2-polarized splenocytes, using IL-12 as a Th1 parameter and IL-4 secretion as a Th2 parameter revealed a wide variety of IL-12- inducing and IL-4-repressing activities, depending on the strain of LAB, not depending on the species. However, evaluation of individual strains in vivo revealed that after exposure to Lactobacillus paracasei KW3110 strain, the serum IgE elevation elicited by repeated OVA injection of mice was strongly inhibited. Cytokine secretion from splenocytes 20 weeks after KW3110 administration showed increased IL-12 and decreased IL-4 expression. Both CD40 and B7-1 expression on macrophages was upregulated by administration of KW3110. Conclusions: Improving the consequences of the Th1/Th2 imbalance by administration of LAB was dependent upon the LAB strain rather than the LAB species. Oral KW3110 administration in the mouse allergy model directed the Th1/Th2 balance toward Th1 through the maturation of APCs and inhibition of serum IgE elevation. Copyright (C) 2004 S. Karger AG, Basel.

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

4.3
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