Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31187876›Full record

ReviewAllergy2020

Overview of in vivo and ex vivo endpoints in murine food allergy models: Suitable for evaluation of the sensitizing capacity of novel proteins?

Laure Castan, Katrine L Bøgh, Natalia Z Maryniak, Michelle M Epstein, Sahar Kazemi, Liam O'Mahony, Marie Bodinier, Joost J Smit, Jolanda H M van Bilsen, Carine Blanchard and 7 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Allergy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. 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

17 authors.

Laure CastanINRA, UR 1268 BIA Nantes, Nantes, France.
Katrine L BøghNational Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark.
Natalia Z MaryniakNational Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark.
Michelle M EpsteinExperimental Allergy Laboratory, Department of Dermatology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Sahar KazemiExperimental Allergy Laboratory, Department of Dermatology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Liam O'MahonyDepartment of Medicine, APC Microbiome Ireland, National University of Ireland, Cork, Ireland.
Marie BodinierINRA, UR 1268 BIA Nantes, Nantes, France.
Joost J SmitInstitute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Jolanda H M van BilsenTNO, Zeist, The Netherlands.
Carine BlanchardConsultant, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3377-290X
Robert GłogowskiDepartment of Animal Breeding and Production, Warsaw University of Life Sciences, Warsaw, Poland.
Hana KozákováInstitute of Microbiology, Czech Academy of Sciences, Nový Hrádek, Czech Republic.
Martin SchwarzerInstitute of Microbiology, Czech Academy of Sciences, Nový Hrádek, Czech Republic.
Mario NotiInstitute of Pathology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Nicole de WitWageningen Food and Biobased Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Grégory BouchaudINRA, UR 1268 BIA Nantes, Nantes, France.ORCID 0000-0002-3794-7287
Shanna Bastiaan-NetWageningen Food and Biobased Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-8922-7305

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Significant efforts are necessary to introduce new dietary protein sources to feed a growing world population while maintaining food supply chain sustainability. Such a sustainable protein transition includes the use of highly modified proteins from side streams or the introduction of new protein sources that may lead to increased clinically relevant allergic sensitization. With food allergy being a major health problem of increasing concern, understanding the potential allergenicity of new or modified proteins is crucial to ensure public health protection. The best predictive risk assessment methods currently relied on are in vivo models, making the choice of endpoint parameters a key element in evaluating the sensitizing capacity of novel proteins. Here, we provide a comprehensive overview of the most frequently used in vivo and ex vivo endpoints in murine food allergy models, addressing their strengths and limitations for assessing sensitization risks. For optimal laboratory-to-laboratory reproducibility and reliable use of predictive tests for protein risk assessment, it is important that researchers maintain and apply the same relevant parameters and procedures. Thus, there is an urgent need for a consensus on key food allergy parameters to be applied in future food allergy research in synergy between both knowledge institutes and clinicians.

Indexed as

Disease Models, AnimalAnimalsBody TemperatureCytokinesFood HypersensitivityImmunoglobulin EImmunoglobulin GMiceMice, Inbred StrainsPhenotypeT-LymphocytesCytokinesImmunoglobulin EImmunoglobulin Ganimal modelsbiomarkersfood allergyprevention

Identifiers

PMID31187876
PMCPMC7065134

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.