ArticleCellular & molecular immunology2017
Differences in phenotype, homing properties and suppressive activities of regulatory T cells induced by epicutaneous, oral or sublingual immunotherapy in mice sensitized to peanut.
Article in Cellular & molecular immunology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
45 citing papers in PubMed, 79 citations in OpenAlex.
- Oral and Skin Sensitisation to Peanut Show Different Immunological Features in Brown Norway Rats.Scandinavian journal of immunology · 2025Article
- Transdermal Allergen-Specific Immunotherapy Using a Biodegradable Microneedle Array Patch in a Murine Model of Peanut Anaphylaxis.Allergy, asthma & immunology research · 2025Article
- Prophylactic Peanut Allergen Ara h 6 Sublingual Immunotherapy Drives Expansion of FoxP3Immunology · 2025Article
- Review
- Triggers for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE): The intersection of food allergy and EoE.The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology · 2024Review
- Dose and route of administration determine the efficacy of prophylactic immunotherapy for peanut allergy in a Brown Norway rat model.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Article
- Recent advances in epicutaneous immunotherapy and potential applications in food allergy.Frontiers in allergy · 2023Review
- Preclinical evaluation of alternatives to oral immunotherapy for food allergies.Frontiers in allergy · 2023Review
- Innovative delivery systems for epicutaneous immunotherapy.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Review
- A microarray patch SARS-CoV-2 vaccine induces sustained antibody responses and polyfunctional cellular immunity.iScience · 2022Article
- Article
- Targeted allergen-specific immunotherapy within the skin improves allergen delivery to induce desensitization to peanut.Immunotherapy · 2022Article
- Polymorphic Variants of Interleukin-13 R130Q and Interleukin-4 T589C in Children with and without Cow's Milk Allergy.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Clinical Manifestations of Pediatric Food Allergy: a Contemporary Review.Clinical reviews in allergy & immunology · 2022Review
- AIT: New Avenues in Allergen Immunotherapy.Handbook of experimental pharmacology · 2022Article
- Immunology of allergen immunotherapy.Immunotherapy advances · 2022Review
- Biomarkers and mechanisms of tolerance induction in food allergic patients drive new therapeutic approaches.Frontiers in immunology · 2022Review
- Moving to the Outskirts: Interplay Between Regulatory T Cells and Peripheral Tissues.Frontiers in immunology · 2022Review
- [The route is the destination-novel forms of application of allergen immunotherapy].Der Hautarzt; Zeitschrift fur Dermatologie, Venerologie, und verwandte Gebiete · 2021Review
- Lack of protective effect of CCR3 blockade during experimental colitis may be related to CCR3 expression by colonic Tregs.Clinical and translational medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Allergen-specific immunotherapy has been proposed as an attractive strategy to actively treat food allergy using the following three different immunotherapy routes: oral (OIT), sublingual (SLIT) and epicutaneous (EPIT) immunotherapy. Regulatory T cells (Tregs) have been shown to have a pivotal role in the mechanisms of immunotherapy. The aim of this study was to compare the phenotype and function of Tregs induced in peanut-sensitized BALB/c mice using these three routes of treatment. We show that although EPIT, OIT and SLIT were all able to effectively desensitize peanut-sensitized mice, they induced different subsets of Tregs. Foxp3+ Tregs were induced by the three treatment routes but with greater numbers induced by EPIT. EPIT and OIT also increased the level of LAP+ Tregs, whereas SLIT induced IL-10+ cells. The suppressive activity of EPIT-induced Tregs did not depend on IL-10 but required CTLA-4, whereas OIT acted through both mechanisms and SLIT was strictly dependent on IL-10. Moreover, the three routes influenced the homing properties of induced Tregs differently, with a larger repertoire of chemokine receptors expressed by EPIT-induced Tregs compared with OIT- and SLIT- induced cells, resulting in different protective consequences against allergen exposure. Furthermore, whereas OIT- or SLIT-induced Tregs lost their suppressive activities after treatment was discontinued, the suppressive activities of EPIT-induced Tregs were still effective 8 weeks after the end of treatment, suggesting the induction of a more long-lasting tolerance. In summary, EPIT, OIT and SLIT mediated desensitization through the induction of different subsets of Tregs, leading to important differences in the subsequent protection against allergen exposure and the possible induction of tolerance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.