ArticleImmunity, inflammation and disease2019
Mouse strain differences in response to oral immunotherapy for peanut allergy.
Article in Immunity, inflammation and disease, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Insights Into Complex Murine Models of Allergy and Anaphylaxis: The Central Role of IgE and Mast Cells in Advancing Human Therapies.European journal of immunology · 2025Review
- Allergen-Encapsulating Nanoparticles Reprogram Pathogenic Allergen-Specific Th2 Cells to Suppress Food Allergy.Advanced healthcare materials · 2025Article
- Inulin-gel-based oral immunotherapy remodels the small intestinal microbiome and suppresses food allergy.Nature materials · 2024Article
- Glycosylation-modified antigens as a tolerance-inducing vaccine platform prevent anaphylaxis in a pre-clinical model of food allergy.Cell reports. Medicine · 2024Article
- Development and evaluation of mouse anti-Ara h 1 and Ara h 3 IgE monoclonal antibodies for advancing peanut allergy research.MethodsX · 2023Article
- Preclinical evaluation of alternatives to oral immunotherapy for food allergies.Frontiers in allergy · 2023Review
- Allergen-Specific IgA Antibodies Block IgE-Mediated Activation of Mast Cells and Basophils.Frontiers in immunology · 2022Article
- Induction of Hypersensitivity with Purified Beta-Lactoglobulin as a Mouse Model of Cow's Milk Allergy.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2021Article
- Oral Immunotherapy Using Probiotic Ice Cream Containing Recombinant Food-GradeJournal of immunology research · 2020Article
- A Comprehensive Review on Natural Bioactive Compounds and Probiotics as Potential Therapeutics in Food Allergy Treatment.Frontiers in immunology · 2020Review
- Mouse strain differences in response to oral immunotherapy for peanut allergy.Immunity, inflammation and disease · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPromising therapies for food allergy are emerging, mostly based on animal experimentation. However, different mouse strains are used, which may make it hard to compare experiments. The current study investigated whether the immunological differences between C3H/HeOuJ (C3H) and BALB/c mice lead to differences in efficacy of peanut-specific immunotherapy.
methodsAfter sensitization using peanut extract (PE), C3H and BALB/c mice received oral immunotherapy (OIT) by intragastric dosing for three weeks. Hereafter, mice were exposed to PE via the intradermal, intragastric and intraperitoneal route, to determine allergic outcomes. Furthermore, PE-specific antibody and cytokine production were determined and the number of various immune cells at different time points during the study were measured.
resultsOIT protected C3H mice against anaphylaxis, whereas no anaphylaxis was seen in BALB/c mice. In contrast, OIT induced an increase in MMCP-1 levels in BALB/c mice but not in C3H mice. No effect of OIT on the acute allergic skin response was observed in either strain. Specific antibody responses showed similar patterns in both strains for IgA and IgG1. IgE levels were a tenfold higher in BALB/c mice and after the intragastric challenge (day 70) OIT-treated BALB/c mice showed induced IgE levels. Moreover, in C3H mice IgG2a levels were higher and increased in response to OIT and challenges. After the final challenge, but not at other timepoints MLN-derived lymphocytes from OIT-treated BALB/c mice produced less IL-13 and IL-5 compared to control-treated mice, whereas no differences were seen in case of C3H mice.
conclusionsTaken together, these results show that the C3H strain is more suitable to study clinical outcomes of OIT, whereas the BALB/c strain is more optimal to study T cell responses.
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.