Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30518040›Full record

ArticleNutrients2018

Comparison of the Allergenicity and Immunogenicity of Camel and Cow's Milk-A Study in Brown Norway Rats.

Natalia Zofia Maryniak, Egon Bech Hansen, Anne-Sofie Ravn Ballegaard, Ana Isabel Sancho, Katrine Lindholm Bøgh

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nutrients, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Recent Advances in Camel Milk Processing.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Natalia Zofia MaryniakDivision of Diet, Disease Prevention and Toxicology, National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark. nazoma@food.dtu.dk.ORCID 0000-0003-1121-4285
Egon Bech HansenDivision of Diet, Disease Prevention and Toxicology, National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark. egbh@food.dtu.dk.ORCID 0000-0002-3795-6706
Anne-Sofie Ravn BallegaardDivision of Diet, Disease Prevention and Toxicology, National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark. anravn@food.dtu.dk.ORCID 0000-0001-9925-5983
Ana Isabel SanchoDivision of Diet, Disease Prevention and Toxicology, National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark. anasa@food.dtu.dk.
Katrine Lindholm BøghDivision of Diet, Disease Prevention and Toxicology, National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark. kalb@food.dtu.dk.ORCID 0000-0002-5266-0372
Technical University of Denmark · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhen breastfeeding is impossible or insufficient, the use of cow's milk-based hypoallergenic infant formulas is an option for infants suffering from or at risk of developing cow's milk allergy. As the Camelidae family has a large evolutionary distance to the Bovidae family and as camel milk differs from cow's milk protein composition, there is a growing interest in investigating the suitability of camel milk as an alternative to cow's milk-based hypoallergenic infant formulas.

methodsThe aim of the study was to compare the allergenicity and immunogenicity of camel and cow's milk as well as investigating their cross-reactivity using a Brown Norway rat model. Rats were immunised intraperitoneally with one of four products: camel milk, cow's milk, cow's milk casein or cow's milk whey fraction. Immunogenicity, sensitising capacity, antibody avidity and cross-reactivity were evaluated by means of different ELISAs. The eliciting capacity was evaluated by an ear swelling test.

resultsCamel and cow's milk showed similarity in their inherent immunogenicity, sensitising and eliciting capacity. Results show that there was a lower cross-reactivity between caseins than between whey proteins from camel and cow's milk.

conclusionsThe study showed that camel and cow's milk have a low cross-reactivity, indicating a low protein similarity. Results demonstrate that camel milk could be a promising alternative to cow's milk-based hypoallergenic infant formulas.

Indexed as

AllergensAnimalsCamelusCattleComputer SimulationDisease Models, AnimalElectrophoresis, Polyacrylamide GelEnzyme-Linked Immunosorbent AssayImmunoglobulin GInfant FormulaMilkMilk HypersensitivityRatsAllergensImmunoglobulin Ganimal modelscamel milkcow’s milkfood allergyinfant formula

Identifiers

PMID30518040
PMCPMC6315711
OpenAlexW2903016070

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.