ArticleFrontiers in allergy2024
Development of a mini pig model of peanut allergy.
Article in Frontiers in allergy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Editorial: Impact of dietary nanoparticles on food allergy development and immune response.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
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
Abstract
Introduction: The prevalence of peanut allergies is increasing, emphasizing the need for an animal model to enhance our understanding of peanut allergy pathogenesis and to advance diagnostic tools and therapeutic interventions. While mice are frequently used as model organisms, their allergic responses do not fully mirror those observed in humans, warranting the exploration of a higher animal model. The porcine gastrointestinal system closely resembles that of humans, and exhibits allergy symptoms akin to human responses, making pigs a promising model for peanut allergy research. Methods: In this study we compared two allergen sensitization protocols involving either topical allergen application after repeated tape stripping (TS) or intraperitoneal (IP) injections to induce peanut-specific allergy and anaphylaxis reactions in mini pigs. Mini pigs sensitized with a combination of peanut protein extract (PE) and cholera toxin (CT) through either the IP or the TS route. Results: Sensitized pigs via both methods developed systemic PE-specific IgG and IgE responses. Following peanut challenge via the IP route, both TS- and IP-sensitized pigs displayed allergy symptoms, including lethargy, skin rashes, vomiting, and a drop in body temperature. However, respiratory distress was observed exclusively in pigs sensitized through the TS route and not in those sensitized through the IP route. However, it is noteworthy that both groups of sensitized pigs maintained peanut hypersensitivity for up to two months post-sensitization, albeit with a reduction in the severity of allergy symptoms. Importantly, both groups exhibited sustained levels of PE-specific IgG, IgE, and elevated concentrations of mast cell protease in their blood following the IP challenges. Discussion: Overall, this study reports TS and IP as two different modes of sensitization leading to onset of peanut specific allergic reactions in mini pigs, but only the TS-sensitization led to systemic anaphylaxis (simultaneous presence of symptoms: breathing difficulty, intense skin rash, and impaired mobility). A distinctive feature of these sensitization protocols is the 100% success rate (
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.