Comparing lymphocyte responses to allergenic and nonallergenic foods could reveal the differences between pathogenic and normal immune responses to foods. Defining the cytokine-producing phenotypes of peanut-specific lymphocytes from peanut-allergic children, children who outgrew peanut allergy, and children who have always tolerated peanuts may be useful for understanding the mechanisms of food tolerance. Investigating immune responses against foods is hindered, however, by the fact that circulating food antigen–specific lymphocytes are very rare. In a novel approach we used carboxyfluorescein succinimidyl ester to detect peanut-specific lymphocytes by flow cytometry. We confirmed that these cells are indeed peanut specific by cloning. Peanut-allergic donors show Th2 polarization of cytokine production by peanut-specific cells (IFN-γ low, TNF-α low, IL-4 high, IL-5 high, IL-13 high). Conversely, nonallergic children and children who have outgrown their allergy show Th1 skewing to peanut antigens (IFN-γhigh, TNF-α high, IL-4 low, IL-5 low, IL-13low), similarly to nonallergenic food antigens (β-lactoglobulin, OVA). This finding suggests that peanut antigens do not intrinsically induce Th2 skewing, but that the type of response depends upon the donor’s allergic status. In conclusion, food allergic status is characterized by a Th2 response whereas Th1-skewed responses underlie oral tolerance.
Victor Turcanu, Soheila J. Maleki, Gideon Lack
Usage data is cumulative from May 2024 through May 2025.
Usage | JCI | PMC |
---|---|---|
Text version | 704 | 86 |
83 | 22 | |
Figure | 342 | 8 |
Table | 40 | 0 |
Citation downloads | 67 | 0 |
Totals | 1,236 | 116 |
Total Views | 1,352 |
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.