Research Article
Volume 1 Issue 4 - 2015
Fascinating Findings from Sensitizing the Wistar Strain Rats Recruited as Peanut-Allergy Model
Lotfollah Behroo*
Nutrition and Metabolic Diseases Research Center, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Iran
*Corresponding Author: Lotfollah Behroo, Nutrition and Metabolic Diseases Research Center, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran.
Received: April 14, 2015; Published: May 04, 2015
Citation: Lotfollah Behroo. “Fascinating Findings from Sensitizing the Wistar Strain Rats Recruited as Peanut-Allergy Model”. EC Nutrition 1.4 (2015): 192-202.
Whenever feasible, animal-based investigations are accomplished in order to characterize/scrutinize to a nicety, the potential sensitizing-activity of the pre-determined and novel allergenic proteins in suspected food(s) also, for the generation of appropriate humankind therapeutic agents. The main aim of the current study was to confirm the sensitization-operation fulfillment in a Wistar strain model of peanut allergy. 21 out of 42 male Wistar rats, aged 4-6 weeks in the beginning, were randomly subjected to sensitization through a 3-stage protocol, at weekly intermissions, with crude peanut extract.
Subsequently, in proof of the sensitization-phase completion, a variety of proven/endorsed In vitro and In vivo assessments that represent anaphylactic parameters were evaluated. Eventually, anaphylactic responses of the sensitized Wistar rats were approved by a significant increment in plasma histamine levels and, in anaphylactic-symptom scores [(p = 0.000) and (p = 0.000) respectively, compared to negative controls], as well as, by positive intradermal- and intraperitoneal-challenge test outcomes.
In brief, considering the homeostatic similarities between rats and humans, earlier studies have referred to Brown Norway rats as a suitable model for human allergic disorders. But here, putting all together, we certify/testify daringly that the Wistar strain model of peanut allergy resembles the humankind responses of the IgE-mediated food allergies in a near manner.
Keywords: Wistar Strain Model, Peanut Allergy, Anaphylactic Parameters, Adjuvant
Adverse immunological reactions to foods are widespread with an acute onset of symptoms/signs following ingestion and typically, mediated by IgE-antibodies [1]. Food specific IgE-antibodies arm the Effector cells; Tissue Mast cells and Blood Basophils, - a condition called ‘Sensitization’. Subsequent exposure to the same allergenic food leads to the discharge of a large number of chemical mediators through the effector cells degranulation. Amongst them histamine is assumed as an influential mediator that can induce all the pathological characteristics of allergic disorders [2-4].
Although peanuts (PNs) and tree-nuts originate from different families, however, they have both, been known to contain potent allergens, with a US study reporting PN and tree-nut allergies to specifically, be account for 90% of the IgE-mediated, deadly anaphylactic reactions [5]. Contrary to other food allergies such as Eggs and Cow’s Milk, PN allergy is not often outgrown.
Notwithstanding our increased understanding of pathophysiological mechanisms involved in food allergies in recent years, there is still no specific therapeutic/curative option available. Presently, strict avoidance and the prescription of adrenaline, in the event of an accidental exposure, are the extant/residual recommended cares.
Talking of several forms of immunotherapy -being currently under investigations including oral, sublingual, epicutaneous and subcutaneous allergen specific immunotherapies [6,7]- regretfully, the high risk of possible anaphylaxis is a major factor confining the development of PN-allergy’s immunotherapy in humans [6,8]. On this concern, animal models may play an important role in providing a platform for refining the treatment polices and, ensuring thorough pre-clinical evaluation of their safety, before therapeutic applications in humans.
Definitely, while In-vitro and cellular surveys are advantageous for evaluating the allergenicity in food products, however the sensitizing potential as well as, the tolerogenic capacity of foodstuffs can be evaluated merely, via In-vivo animal models [9].
To-date, there is no ideal animal model for food allergy (FA). Dogs, pigs, and sheep are typical examples of large animal models that have been utilized in F.A studies. Even though the large animals bear significant precedence/preference as models for F.A reflecting closely the human-being corresponding allergic entity owing to their physiology and out-bred traits [10,11], however, small animal models are often employed to characterize the underlying immunological pathways.
At a glance, murine models are the best/commonest small animal-models among the rest, with Brown Norway strain being claimed to be appropriate for inducing specific IgE-immunoglobulins after oral-sensitization [12-17]. Of course, other rat-strains have also been evaluated but it is reported that they fail to produce quantifiable levels of antigen-specific IgEs [14].
Concerning the critical interests to know the pathology of the animals being studied and, to understand the impact of the disease-processes on the parameters being measured, the striking characteristics of Wistar-rat as a highly-adaptive alternative model for comparison polices/purposes, as well as, testing of different therapeutic/interventional procedures can be practically fascinating. Principally, Wistar rats are used as the primary species for ADME (Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism and Excretion) and toxicology studies in early drug-development. In a parallel manner, marked wistar-strain-dependent experimental facilities are extensively available worldwide.
Hence, in an effort to recruit the most relevant rats for F.A model, we were prompted to test the Wistar strain model of PN allergy. As a result, the current study was directed, in continuation of our previous study [18], to scrutinize the susceptibility of Wistar rats to PN hypersensitivity following the sensitization/induction protocol with the view of improving/promoting of our understanding as for the temperament of food allergies.
Materials and Methods
Laboratory Animals
A total of 42 male Wistar rats, aged 4-6 week and, weighing 80-120 g at study-start, were obtained from the Animal House of Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences (AJUMS) and shortly, were divided into wiry-cages in colonies of 5 (max). Considering the operating-instruction, the rats were housed in an animal room sustained at 23 ± 3°C and a relative humidity of 30-70% with an altering light-dark cycle of 12h, throughout the research and for at least, one week before the sensitization period for acclimatizing. The animals had free access to PN-free standard rodent-chow and water.
All the processes/handlings involving the investigated wistars were accorded exactly, to Guidelines for the Laboratory Animal Experiments in AJUMS Animal Research and Care Center.
The substances/reagents consumed in our research were Alum=AlOH3 (Alhydrogel 2.0%, Serva Chemical Co., USA), Cholera Toxin (C-3012, Sigma Chemical Co., St. Louis, Mo, USA), Evan's Blue Dye (Merck Chemical Co., Germany), K3-EDTA (Sigma Chemical Co., St. Louis, Mo, USA), Phosphate Buffered Saline (Merck Chemical Co., Germany), Rat Histamine kit (LDN Chemical Co., Germany), and Rat Total IgE kit (ICL Chemical Co, USA).
In addition, Encrusted/Crude Peanuts were provided from Safi-Abad Tree-Planting Research Station in the town of Dezful.
In the present study, PN proteins -as test allergens- were extracted from fresh/crude PNs, according to the reference method [19] which is described briefly, as follows:
Primarily, PN-bodies were pulverized by a mill and subsequently, the resulted paste was defatted by n-Hexane (1:3 v/v, 3 times). Following the separation process, residues were deodorized and dried out via gentle heat-treatment. After that, the obtained flour was mixed with Phosphate Buffered Saline (PBS) (1:10 w/v) and subjected to extraction by shaking overnight at 4°C. Then, the resulted suspension was methodically, centrifuged twice for clarification, as mentioned below:
Firstly: Centrifugation at 3500 r/min. and 4°C for 30 min.
Secondly: Centrifugation at 5000 r/min. and 4°C for 20 min.
Afterwards, the supernatant was additionally, filter-sterilized through 0.45-μm pore-size sterile syringe filters and lastly, the collected extract was stored as frozen at -20°C until need.
Initially, to assure in terms of allergology, the employment of naïve animals concerning the allergen studied, pre-study blood-samples were captured (day #1 of the acclimatization-period, n = 42 Wistar rats).
Subsequently, in the beginning of the sensitization-procedure, 21 Wistar rats were randomly, selected and after a short space, exposed to a three-stage sensitization protocol, every other week (i.e., on days of 8-9 ****** 16-17 ****** 24-25), with crude peanut extract (CPE) according to Roy K, et al. prescription [20], with a little adjustment. Each sensitization attempt was arranged in order of two successive days:
On the first days of each week (days of 8, 16 and 24): Oral administration of 1 mg CPE plus 10 µg Cholera-toxin adjuvant/rat.
On the second days of each week (days of 9, 17 and 25): Intraperitoneal (IP) injection of 0.5 µg CPE plus 0.2 ml Alum adjuvant/rat.
In a parallel manner, naïve/non-sensitized wistar rats (n = 21, as negative counterparts) were studied too, for goal-oriented determinations/resolutions.
Noteworthy, one of the challenging obstacles entangled with actuating the animal models of F.A is the inclination of immune system to develop oral-tolerance as to ingested allergens. Therefore, driving the field-expedient benefits of appropriate adjuvants such as Cholera Toxin and/or Alum, to assist stimulate a Th2-response, is routine in F.A models [21-28].
Furthermore, in order to provide IgE-antibodies with an occasion of fixing on/binding to effector cells in target organs and in the Meantime, to negate/rule out the presumed/possible (confounding-) pharmaceutical side effects -which would be attributed to adjuvants, all the animals got through with a 1-week length of Rest-Period following the latest sensitizing-dose injection.
Sensitization-Operation Confirmation
Measurement of Total Serum IgE Levels
Subsequently, to a day 32, orbital-plexus blood-samples were obtained by micro-capillary tubes into micro-tubes (1.5 ml in size and 0.75 ml in each one/rat). After 0.5 to 1h coagulation at room temperature, sera were collected. Thereafter, the levels of total serum IgE-immunoglobulins were determined by means of an enzyme immunoassay kit, as described by manufacturer. All analyses were performed in duplicate.
Measurement of Rectal Temperatures
According to procedure, rectal temperatures of the Wistar rats were measured by means of a digital thermometer at the time of study-beginning as well as, one week post sensitization-period following the first intragastric (ig) challenge-dose administration.
Measurement of Plasma Histamine Levels
Conventionally, 25-30 min. after the second ig challenging, orbital-plexus blood samples (0.75 ml/rat) were obtained by micro-capillary hematocrit tubes into EDTA micro-tubes for plasma-analysis of histamine. After centrifuging at 2000 × g for 20 min., the plasma-specimens were stored at -20°C until analyzed according to respective brochure, in duplicate.
Assessment of Systemic Anaphylactic Symptoms/Signs
Anaphylactic symptoms and signs of the PN-allergy sensitized wistar rats were evaluated 35-40 min. after the second ig challenge-dose gavaging, through the scoring system, which was modified slightly from the earlier prescriptions [18,29,30].
0: No symptoms/signs;
  1. Rubbing and scratching around the snout and head;
  2. Pilar erecti, puffiness around the eyes and mouth, cringing-humping-hunching, gnashing the teeth, anorexia, diarrhea, urine-incontinence, reduced activity and/or standing-still plus increased respiratory rate;
  3. Wheezing, labored respiration, and cyanosis around the mouth and the tail;
  4. Symptoms/signs as in No. 3 accompanied by no activity after prodding, lethargy-paralysis or malformation or tremor and convulsions;
  5. Death.
Wheal Reaction
2-h before PN-challenge, the abdominal surfaces of wistar rats (n = 7/group), were shaved and used for the ensuing intradermal (id) skin-tests with sterile CPE. 5-min. before the test, 100 µl of Evan's blue dye (5 mg/ml.PBS) was injected into the tail-vein of each rat to ease visualize the wheal reaction. Subsequently, 66 µl of the filter-sterilized CPE (3 mg/ml) was administrated intradermally, into the said abdominal skins.
Corresponding measures were carried out using Saline in negative controls, as well. A positive response was defined as a wheal reaction showing up as a blue circle/area greater than 5 mm in diameter while recording at 20 min. post id-injection.
Detection of Vascular Leakage
Seven rats from each group received 200 µl of Evan's blue dye (5 mg/ml.PBS) by tail-vein injection, 5 min. before the intraperitoneal challenge-dose administration. Subsequently, footpads & paws of the examined animals were scrutinized for manifestations of vascular permeability (visible blue color), 40-45 min. post ip-administering of 200 µg of the filter sterilized CPE.
Statistical Analyses
In due time, data were processed by SPSS statistical package, version 19. So, as for serum IgE-antibodies, the differences between two groups were compared via Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA and afterwards, by Student’s t-test. As to histamine levels, rectal temperatures and anaphylactic scores, the differences were analyzed by one-way ANOVA followed by Mann-Whitney U-test. A probability value of less than 0.05 was recognized to be a significant difference.
Variations in Total Serum IgE Levels
Surprisingly, subsequent to sensitization-period (on day 32), and after the first ig challenge-dose administration, the total serum IgE levels had remarkably been elevated overall, in all the sensitized animals (Mean ± SEM = 348.40 ± 4.86 ng/ml in sensitized vs. 73.67 ± 5.89 ng/ml in non-sensitized subjects; P = 0.000 and n = 21 Wistar rats/group: Diagram 1).
Diagram 1: Levels of PN-induced Total Serum IgE; Sera from both Groups of Wistar Rats were obtained two times; 1-W pre- and post-sensitization period (On Days #0 and #32). PN-induced IgE levels were determined by using ELISA. Data have been given as Means ± SEM for each Group. PN: Peanut, IgE: Immunoglobulin E, W: Week, ELISA: Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay, SEM: Standard Error of Means, C-: Negative Control, and C+: Positive Control. Day #0; P < 0.427, Negative Control & Positive Control Groups, n = 21 Wistar rats per group. Day #32; *P < 0.000, Positive Control Group vs. Negative Control Group, n = 21 Wistar rats per group.
Variations in Rectal Temperatures
In a parallel manner, 20-25 min. following the first ig challenge-dose, all the wistar rats in positive control group experienced, predictably, a fall in rectal temperatures of 2 to 4°C 1-week post sensitization period (on day 32, Mean ± SEM= 34.23 ± 0.10°C in sensitized vs. 36.64 ± 0.08°C in non-sensitized animals; P = 0.000 and n = 21 Wistar rats/group: Diagram 2).
Diagram 2: Variations in Rectal Temperatures of Wistar Rats at the time of study-initiation (On Day #0) and one week post sensitization-period (On Day #32); Data have been given as Means ± SEM for each Group. Day #0; P < 0.744, Negative Control & Positive Control Groups, n = 21 Wistar rats per group. Day #32; **P < 0.000, Positive Control Group vs. Negative Control Group, n = 21 Wistar rats per group.
Histamine Release Measurements after PNE-Challenges
Accordingly, as illustrated in diagram #3, 25-30 minutes subsequent to second ig challenge-dose-prescription, the plasma histamine levels had markedly been elevated in positive control group in contrast with negative counterparts (day 32, Mean ± SEM = 141.15 ± 10.19 ng/ml in sensitized vs. 10.60 ± 1.36 ng/ml in non-sensitized/naïve animals; P = 0.000 and n = 21 Wistar rats/group: Diagram 3).
Diagram 3: Plasma Histamine Levels 1-W post-sensitization period (On Day #32) followed by ig PNE-challenges in both Groups of the Wistar Rats; Blood specimens for plasma histamine levels were obtained 25-30 min after the second challenge-dose administration and were determined by using ELISA. Data have been given as Means ± SEM for each Group. W: Week, ig: Intra-gastric, PNE: Peanut Extract, ELISA: Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay, SEM: Standard Error of Means, C+: Positive Control; C-: Negative Control. Day #32, ***P < 0.000, Positive Control Group vs. Negative Control Group, n = 21 Wistar rats per group.
Anaphylactic Signs/Symptoms Scoring following PNE-Challenges
From a clinical point of view, all the test animals in positive control group manifested typically, the characteristics/features of an anaphylaxis 1-week post sensitization-period and subsequent to second ig challenge-dose administration. On the contrary, none of the naïve/non-sensitized controls developed an anaphylactic-reaction sequelae (day 32, n = 21 Wistar rats/group and, median scores = 3 and 0, respectively).
For a wonder, the sensitized wistar rats had been affected with apparent/undocumented physical malformation, also with, some other novel manifestation -Figure 1.
Figure 1: Clinical Signs/Symptoms of Anaphylactic Reactions after ig Peanut Extract-challenges in Wistar Rats under investigation; Wistar Rats in both of Groups (n = 21, each) were challenged intra-gastrically with Crude Peanut Extract one Week following sensitization period (On Day #32). Clinical Signs/Symptoms of Anaphylaxis were evaluated 35-40 min after the second challenge-dose administration.
Statistically, significant differences in anaphylactic symptom-scores between two groups were achieved (P = 0.000: Diagram 4).
Diagram 4: Systemic anaphylaxis-Scores in Wistar Rats following intra-gastric Peanut Extract-challenges; Data have been shown as Median Scores for each Group. Day #32, ****P < 0.000, Positive Control Group vs. Negative Control Group, Median Scores: 3 and 0, respectively, n = 21 Wistar rats per group.
Wheal Reaction Analysis after PNE-Challenge
Expectedly, subsequent to id challenge-dose injection with sterile CPE, abdominal surfaces of the research animals, merely in positive control group showed up, at record time, a wheal reaction as a blue circle/area close to/greater than one centimeter in diameter on day 32 (n = 7 Wistar rats/group: Figure 2).
Figure 2: Photographs illustrate Skin Tests 1-W post-sensitization period (On Day #32) and after id CPE-administration; Marked blue-colored Bumps in the Abdominal Skins of the Positive Controls but not in those of Non-sensitized/Naïve Wistar Rats. Results represent 7 Animals from each Group.
Evaluation of Vascular Leakage after PNE-Challenge
Consistently, following ip challenge-dose injection, the footpads and paws of the inspected wistar rats only in positive control group, manifested an extensive vascular permeability -revealed by blue color-, whereas those of the non-sensitized animals had absolutely normal appearances/forms (day 32 and n = 7 Wistar rats/group: Figure 3).
Figure 3: Photographs illustrate Footpads & Paws of Wistar Rats after ip CPE-administration at 1-week post-sensitization period (On Day #32); Marked Vascular Leakage (livid) and Deformity were seen only in the Positive Controls. Results represent 7 Animals from each Group.
Sounding the alarm, we say again that the allergic disorders constitute one of the major concerns of modern day medicine. In particular, evident intensification in the incidence of food allergies announces the necessity of additional assessments to enhance any requisite, encountering strengths including preventative and therapeutic strategies in this field.
On the other hand, extensive investigations of humans are restricted moralistically also, considering the risk of likly life-threatening events. This prompts the researchers for exploiting of the pertinent exploratory animals in order to initiate/operate an appropriate action system for food allergies. However, due to a variety of reasons such as idiosyncratic genetic-construct and/or poverty/weakness of the supposed homeostatic similarities between human and the employed laboratory animals (e.g., immune un/responsiveness to particular proteins [31,32] -strictly speaking; Epitopes-), not all of them necessarily, offer hope for desired therapies in human being subjects. Therefore, there is up to now, no perfect model of F.A. Nonetheless, the need for functionally/practically compatible animal models cannot be disputed, never.
Despite few immunological studies denoting various similarities between large animals and human physiology, relatively a few of the reagents/conditions required for studies of allergic disorders in such models are available, including sensitive and specific assays for total and antigen-specific IgEs, etc. Hence, the majority of animal-model studies have been focused on rodent mammals.
Chronologically, Brown Norway rat is known as a sole IgE responder, allowing some level of comparison to atopic/allergic humans [12-17]. Consistently, it is claimed that other rat-strains fail to yield a quantifiable level of IgE-antibodies.
But here, irrespective of the evidence [14], our outcomes/analyses in the current research demonstrated the immunological and clinical (systemic and local) features of the PN allergy as experienced by human beings. In a word, fascinating results obtained in our study signified/suggested that the Wistar rats have been sensitized completely/typically -100% IgE responding. Insofar as, the significant elevation of the PN-induced total serum IgE levels was confirmed overall, in all the PN-sensitized wistar rats (p = 0.000, in contrast with negative control animals).
Even Further, as an ideal representative of an anaphylactic shock response, all the sensitized rats incurred a drop in rectal temperatures of 2 to (close) 4°C after the first ig challenge-dose administration. Accordingly, plasma histamine levels and anaphylactic-symptom scores in positive control group had a significant increment as compared with negative control group [(p = 0.000) and (p = 0.000), respectively], subsequent to second ig challenge dosing -1 mg of CPE/rat; as the first one but, 25-30 min. later.
In a parallel manner, the histamine discharge led to the vascular permeability-expansion as well as, to obvious wheal reactions which are both, referred to as hallmarks of an anaphylactic response. Notably, the sensitized wistars in our study manifested moreover, some undocumented/novel anaphylactic symptoms/signs, including Anorexia, Urine-incontinence, Gnashing, Cringing/Hunching, Physical Distortion -footpads & paws deformity-, and Lethargy/Paralysis. Especially, even though the Death of the laboratory animals is not as usual as it is seen in humans undergoing the anaphylaxis-complications, however, one Death was surprisingly occurred too, in the sensitized Wistar rats in our study -Figure 1; Right/Middle.
So, according to attained rational/convincing findings, of acute allergic skin-test responses, of variations in vascular leakage, of systemic anaphylactic-symptom scores and plasma histamine release measurements after PNE-challenges, as well as, via the completion of other complementary tests, we hereby address strongly, a successful sensitization-induction achievement in the Wistar-strain-rat, for the first time.
So much is certain that our comprehensive understanding of the underlying pathomechanisms of allergies is an urgent issue and doubtlessly, will warrant the search of appropriate approaches that can help managing of these maladies’ consequences.
Fundamentally, to improve our comprehension of IgE-antibodies, as well as, for scrutinizing the IgE-mediated hypersensitivity reactions to foods and so forth, there is an urgency to actuate appropriate animal models. Collectively, animal models, as a reliable Means, possess a large quantity of qualifications to cope the problematic complications encompassing the allergies. But, for an animal model to be duly of efficacy in the purview of F.A we need to realize the functional/experimental characteristics of such models and, to identify the respective impediments, in particular, with respect to their feasibility, reproducibility and reliability under different/distinctive situations.
In conclusion, although additional assessments are warranted with refined, weak/strong allergens, and allergenic intact-foods to further validate the improved Wistar model, however, our significant findings in this investigation denoted, in the first place, the IgE-antibodies mediation; Anaphylactic Pathway; in activation of the effector cells in the Wistar rats sensitized orally by PN-allergens. Second, they affirmed/supported the foresaid strain as a fitting/prone model for inspecting/elucidating the PN allergy-pertaining pathophysiological aspects/traits, which eventually will allow finely-founded judgments to be constructed concerning the temperament of possible hazards associated with type-1 hypersensitivity disorders.
At last, it must be noted that having the Wistar rats bred for multiple generations and keeping them naïve/non-sensitized as to the allergen of interest also, the cross-reactive allergenic proteins, might amend the data from our examination, as much.
The author likes to thank Mr. Mohammad Nokhbeh -the lab technician of the Pharmacy School in AJUMS- for his best efforts and sincere assistance.
  1. Taylor SL and Hefle SL. “Will genetically modified foods be allergenic?” Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 107.5 (2001): 765-771.
  2. Miller H. “The Role of Histamine in Allergy”. California and Western Medicine 40.1 (1934): 60.
  3. Koppelman SJ., et al. “Relevance of Ara h1, Ara h2 and Ara h3 in peanut-allergic patients, as determined by immunoglobulin E Western blotting, basophil-histamine release and intracutaneous testing: Ara h2 is the most important peanut allergen”. Clinical & Experimental Allergy 34 (2004): 583-590.
  4. Jutel M., et al. “Histamine in allergic inflammation and immune modulation”. International Archives of Allergy and Immunology 137.1 (2005): 82-92.
  5. Bock SA., et al. “Fatalities due to anaphylactic reactions to foods”. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 107.1 (2001): 191-193.
  6. Rolland JM., et al. “Allergen-related approaches to immunotherapy”. Pharmacology and Therapeutics 121.3 (2009): 273-284.
  7. Pascal M., et al. “In silico prediction of Ara h 2 T cell epitopes in peanut-allergic children”. Clinical andExperimental Allergy 43.1 (2013): 116-127.
  8. Blumchen K., et al. “Oral peanut immunotherapy in children with peanut anaphylaxis”. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 126.1 (2010): 83.e1-91.e1.
  9. Aldemir H., et al. “Murine models for evaluating the allergenicity of novel proteins and foods”. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 54.3 (2009): S52-S57.
  10. Meeusen EN., et al. “Sheep as a model species for the study and treatment of human asthma and other respiratory diseases”. Drug Discovery Today: Disease Models 6.4 (2009): 101-106.
  11. Scheerlinck JPY, et al. “Biomedical applications of sheep models: from asthma to vaccines”. Trends in Biotechnology 26.5 (2008): 259-266.
  12. Atkinson HAC and Miller K. “Assessment of the Brown Norway rat as a suitable model for the investigation of food allergy”. Toxicology 91.3 (1994): 281-288.
  13. Atkinson HAC., et al. “Brown Norway rat model of food allergy: effect of plant components on the development of oral sensitization”. Food and Chemical Toxicology 34.1 (1996): 27-32.
  14. Knippels LMJ., et al. “Humoral and cellular immune responses in different rat strains on oral exposure to ovalbumin”. Food and Chemical Toxicology 37.8 (1999): 881-888.
  15. Knippels LM., et al. “Immune mediated effects upon oral challenge of ovalbumin-sensitized Brown Norway rats: further characterization of a rat food allergy model”. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 156.3 (1999): 161-169.
  16. Knippels LM., et al. “An oral sensitization model in Brown Norway rats to screen for potential allergenicity of food proteins”. Methods 19 (1999): 78-82.
  17. Holt PG and Turner KJ. “Persistent IgE-secreting cells which are refractory to T-cell control”. InternationalArchives of Allergy and Applied Immunology 77.1-2 (1985): 45-46.
  18. Shishehbor F., et al. “Quercetin effectively quells peanut-induced anaphylactic reactions in the peanut sensitized rats”. Iranian Journal of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology 9.1 (2010): 27-34.
  19. Koppelman SJ., et al. “Peanut allergen Ara h 3: isolation from peanuts and biochemical characterization”. Allergy 58.11 (2003): 1144-1151.
  20. Roy K., et al. “Oral gene delivery with chitosan--DNA nanoparticles generates immunologic protection in a murine model of peanut allergy”. Nature Medicine 5.4 (1999): 387-391.
  21. Thang CL., et al. “Effects of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG supplementation on cow's milk allergy in a mouse model”. Allergy, Asthma and Clinical Immunology 7 (2011): article 20.
  22. Bailon E., et al. “A shorter and more specific oral sensitization-based experiment model of food allergy in mice”. Journal of Immunological Methods 381.1-2 (2012): 41-49.
  23. Li XM., et al. “A murine model of IgE-mediated cow's milk hypersensitivity”. Journal of Allergy and ClinicalImmunology 103.2 (1999): 206-214.
  24. Morafo V., et al. “Genetic susceptibility to food allergy is linked to differential TH2-TH1 responses in C3H/HeJ and BALB/c mice”. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 111.5 (2003): 1122-1128.
  25. Rupa P., et al. “A neonatal swine model of allergy induced by the major food allergen chicken ovomucoid (Gald 1)”. International Archives of Allergy and Immunology 146.1 (2008): 11-18.
  26. Li XM., et al. “A murine model of peanut anaphylaxis: T- and B-cell responses to a major peanut allergen mimic human responses”. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 106.1 (2000): 150-158.
  27. Fischer R., et al. “Oral and nasal sensitization promote distinct immune responses and lung reactivity in a mouse model of peanut allergy”. The American Journal of Pathology 167.6 (2005): 1621-1630.
  28. Helm RM., et al. “A neonatal swine model for peanut allergy”. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 109.1 (2002): 136-142.
  29. Li XM., et al. “Food allergy Herbal Formula-1 (FAHF-1) blocks peanut-induced anaphylaxis in a murine model”. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 108.4 (2001): 639-646.
  30. Goodman RE., et al. “Assessing genetically modified crops to minimize the risk of increased food allergy: a review”. International Archives of Allergy and Immunology 137.2 (2005): 153-166.
  31. McClain S and Bannon GA. “Animal models of food allergy: opportunities and barriers”. Current Allergyand Asthma Reports 6 (2006): 141-144.
  32. Spok A., et al. “Suggestions for the assessment of the allergenic potential of genetically modified organisms”. International Archives of Allergy and Immunology 137 (2005): 167-180.
Copyright: © 2015 Lotfollah Behroo. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

PubMed Indexed Article

EC Pharmacology and Toxicology
LC-UV-MS and MS/MS Characterize Glutathione Reactivity with Different Isomers (2,2' and 2,4' vs. 4,4') of Methylene Diphenyl-Diisocyanate.

PMID: 31143884 [PubMed]

PMCID: PMC6536005

EC Pharmacology and Toxicology
Alzheimer's Pathogenesis, Metal-Mediated Redox Stress, and Potential Nanotheranostics.

PMID: 31565701 [PubMed]

PMCID: PMC6764777

EC Neurology
Differences in Rate of Cognitive Decline and Caregiver Burden between Alzheimer's Disease and Vascular Dementia: a Retrospective Study.

PMID: 27747317 [PubMed]

PMCID: PMC5065347

EC Pharmacology and Toxicology
Will Blockchain Technology Transform Healthcare and Biomedical Sciences?

PMID: 31460519 [PubMed]

PMCID: PMC6711478

EC Pharmacology and Toxicology
Is it a Prime Time for AI-powered Virtual Drug Screening?

PMID: 30215059 [PubMed]

PMCID: PMC6133253

EC Psychology and Psychiatry
Analysis of Evidence for the Combination of Pro-dopamine Regulator (KB220PAM) and Naltrexone to Prevent Opioid Use Disorder Relapse.

PMID: 30417173 [PubMed]

PMCID: PMC6226033

EC Anaesthesia
Arrest Under Anesthesia - What was the Culprit? A Case Report.

PMID: 30264037 [PubMed]

PMCID: PMC6155992

EC Orthopaedics
Distraction Implantation. A New Technique in Total Joint Arthroplasty and Direct Skeletal Attachment.

PMID: 30198026 [PubMed]

PMCID: PMC6124505

EC Pulmonology and Respiratory Medicine
Prevalence and factors associated with self-reported chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults aged 40-79: the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2007-2012.

PMID: 30294723 [PubMed]

PMCID: PMC6169793

EC Dental Science
Important Dental Fiber-Reinforced Composite Molding Compound Breakthroughs

PMID: 29285526 [PubMed]

PMCID: PMC5743211

EC Microbiology
Prevalence of Intestinal Parasites Among HIV Infected and HIV Uninfected Patients Treated at the 1o De Maio Health Centre in Maputo, Mozambique

PMID: 29911204 [PubMed]

PMCID: PMC5999047

EC Microbiology
Macrophages and the Viral Dissemination Super Highway

PMID: 26949751 [PubMed]

PMCID: PMC4774560

EC Microbiology
The Microbiome, Antibiotics, and Health of the Pediatric Population.

PMID: 27390782 [PubMed]

PMCID: PMC4933318

EC Microbiology
Reactive Oxygen Species in HIV Infection

PMID: 28580453 [PubMed]

PMCID: PMC5450819

EC Microbiology
A Review of the CD4 T Cell Contribution to Lung Infection, Inflammation and Repair with a Focus on Wheeze and Asthma in the Pediatric Population

PMID: 26280024 [PubMed]

PMCID: PMC4533840

EC Neurology
Identifying Key Symptoms Differentiating Myalgic Encephalomyelitis and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome from Multiple Sclerosis

PMID: 28066845 [PubMed]

PMCID: PMC5214344

EC Pharmacology and Toxicology
Paradigm Shift is the Normal State of Pharmacology

PMID: 28936490 [PubMed]

PMCID: PMC5604476

EC Neurology
Examining those Meeting IOM Criteria Versus IOM Plus Fibromyalgia

PMID: 28713879 [PubMed]

PMCID: PMC5510658

EC Neurology
Unilateral Frontosphenoid Craniosynostosis: Case Report and a Review of the Literature

PMID: 28133641 [PubMed]

PMCID: PMC5267489

EC Ophthalmology
OCT-Angiography for Non-Invasive Monitoring of Neuronal and Vascular Structure in Mouse Retina: Implication for Characterization of Retinal Neurovascular Coupling

PMID: 29333536 [PubMed]

PMCID: PMC5766278

EC Neurology
Longer Duration of Downslope Treadmill Walking Induces Depression of H-Reflexes Measured during Standing and Walking.

PMID: 31032493 [PubMed]

PMCID: PMC6483108

EC Microbiology
Onchocerciasis in Mozambique: An Unknown Condition for Health Professionals.

PMID: 30957099 [PubMed]

PMCID: PMC6448571

EC Nutrition
Food Insecurity among Households with and without Podoconiosis in East and West Gojjam, Ethiopia.

PMID: 30101228 [PubMed]

PMCID: PMC6086333

EC Ophthalmology
REVIEW. +2 to +3 D. Reading Glasses to Prevent Myopia.

PMID: 31080964 [PubMed]

PMCID: PMC6508883

EC Gynaecology
Biomechanical Mapping of the Female Pelvic Floor: Uterine Prolapse Versus Normal Conditions.

PMID: 31093608 [PubMed]

PMCID: PMC6513001

EC Dental Science
Fiber-Reinforced Composites: A Breakthrough in Practical Clinical Applications with Advanced Wear Resistance for Dental Materials.

PMID: 31552397 [PubMed]

PMCID: PMC6758937

EC Microbiology
Neurocysticercosis in Child Bearing Women: An Overlooked Condition in Mozambique and a Potentially Missed Diagnosis in Women Presenting with Eclampsia.

PMID: 31681909 [PubMed]

PMCID: PMC6824723

EC Microbiology
Molecular Detection of Leptospira spp. in Rodents Trapped in the Mozambique Island City, Nampula Province, Mozambique.

PMID: 31681910 [PubMed]

PMCID: PMC6824726

EC Neurology
Endoplasmic Reticulum-Mitochondrial Cross-Talk in Neurodegenerative and Eye Diseases.

PMID: 31528859 [PubMed]

PMCID: PMC6746603

EC Psychology and Psychiatry
Can Chronic Consumption of Caffeine by Increasing D2/D3 Receptors Offer Benefit to Carriers of the DRD2 A1 Allele in Cocaine Abuse?

PMID: 31276119 [PubMed]

PMCID: PMC6604646

EC Anaesthesia
Real Time Locating Systems and sustainability of Perioperative Efficiency of Anesthesiologists.

PMID: 31406965 [PubMed]

PMCID: PMC6690616

EC Pharmacology and Toxicology
A Pilot STEM Curriculum Designed to Teach High School Students Concepts in Biochemical Engineering and Pharmacology.

PMID: 31517314 [PubMed]

PMCID: PMC6741290

EC Pharmacology and Toxicology
Toxic Mechanisms Underlying Motor Activity Changes Induced by a Mixture of Lead, Arsenic and Manganese.

PMID: 31633124 [PubMed]

PMCID: PMC6800226

EC Neurology
Research Volunteers' Attitudes Toward Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Myalgic Encephalomyelitis.

PMID: 29662969 [PubMed]

PMCID: PMC5898812

EC Pharmacology and Toxicology
Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy for Alzheimer's Disease.

PMID: 30215058 [PubMed]

PMCID: PMC6133268

News and Events

February Issue Release

We always feel pleasure to share our updates with you all. Here, notifying you that we have successfully released the February issue of respective journals and the latest articles can be viewed on the current issue pages.

Submission Deadline for Upcoming Issue

ECronicon delightfully welcomes all the authors around the globe for effective collaboration with an article submission for the upcoming issue of respective journals. Submissions are accepted on/before February 21, 2023.

Certificate of Publication

ECronicon honors with a "Publication Certificate" to the corresponding author by including the names of co-authors as a token of appreciation for publishing the work with our respective journals.

Best Article of the Issue

Editors of respective journals will always be very much interested in electing one Best Article after each issue release. The authors of the selected article will be honored with a "Best Article of the Issue" certificate.

Certifying for Review

ECronicon certifies the Editors for their first review done towards the assigned article of the respective journals.

Latest Articles

The latest articles will be updated immediately on the articles in press page of the respective journals.