Abstract
Pru p 3 is the major peach allergen in the Mediterranean area. It frequently elicits severe reactions, limiting its study in humans, raising the need for animal models to investigate the immunological mechanisms involved. However, no anaphylaxis model exists for Pru p 3. We aimed to develop a model of peach anaphylaxis by sensitising mice with Pru p 3 in combination with lipopolysaccharide (LPS) as an adjuvant. Four groups of mice were sensitised intranasally: untreated; treated with Pru p 3; treated with LPS; treated with Pru p 3 + LPS. After sensitisation mice were intraperitoneally challenged with Pru p 3 and in vivo and in vitro parameters were evaluated. Only mice in the Pru p 3 + LPS group showed anaphylaxis symptoms, including a decrease in temperature. Determination of in vitro parameters showed a Th2 response with an increase of Pru p 3-specific IgE and IgG1. Moreover, at the cellular level, we found increased levels of IgE and IgG1 secreting Pru p 3-specific cells and a proliferative CD4+ T-cell response. These results demonstrate that Pru p 3-specific anaphylaxis can be generated after nasal sensitisation to Pru p 3 in combination with LPS. This is a promising model for evaluating food allergy immunotherapies.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
Food allergic reactions are an increasing worldwide problem, with important effects on health systems and the quality of life of individuals. Plant allergens are the most frequent elicitors of food allergy in adults1,2. Only a small number of protein families contain allergens3, one of the most important being lipid transfer proteins (LTP) from the Rosaceae family, which includes apple and peach. Allergens from this family are frequently involved in allergic reactions to plant-derived foods4,5.
The immunological mechanisms underlying food allergy are characterised by the induction of specific Th2 cells and production of specific IgE antibodies to food proteins6. Animal models have been used to improve our understanding of the immunological and pathophysiological mechanisms involved in the development of food allergy6,7,8 and to assess the modulation of the immune response9. The mouse immune system is well-characterised and it represents an excellent model to study an immune reaction in its full complexity in vivo. Various mouse models that mimic allergic responses involving specific IgE production have been developed using antigens such as ovalbumin10, as well as food allergens such as milk11, wheat (gliadin)12, peanut13 and tree nuts14. The allergen administration route is very important for sensitisation in food allergen models and oral administration is often seen as the logical choice15. However, this route may in fact have a low sensitising potential for inducing IgE antibody responses, probably due to the fact that the gastrointestinal tract has an important tolerogenic role16,17,18. Moreover, clinical studies have suggested that exposure to allergens through the skin or the respiratory tract might also play a role in food sensitisation19,20.
LTPs are panallergens with high stability to heat, pH and enzymatic digestion, and frequently associated with systemic and severe symptoms like anaphylaxis21,22,23. Pru p 3 is a member of the LTP family and the major peach allergen in the Mediterranean area21,24. The high sensitisation to Pru p 3, its cross-reactivity with other foods and pollens and its frequent involvement in severe reactions make it difficult to investigate the mechanisms underlying peach allergy in humans, although several studies have been performed looking into the role of sIgE and its influence on reaction severity25 and cross-reactivity with other plants21,24,26. Nevertheless, there is a clear need to develop approaches for its study, such as experimental models. However, although Pru p 3 sensitised mouse models with IgE production have been developed27, no anaphylaxis model demonstrated by in vivo parameters has yet been achieved. Some authors have demonstrated that the intrinsic adjuvant activity provided by associated lipids could underlie the allergenicity of some proteins20,28. Thus, the use of adjuvants may enhance allergic sensitisation in animal models. In this sense, lipopolysaccharide (LPS), a bacterial component, represents a potential candidate since it has been shown to modulate the immune response by interacting with toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4). LPS has been shown to be able to induce both Th1 and Th2 responses depending on dosage, with low levels of LPS facilitating a Th2 response and allergic reaction29.
In this study we aimed to develop a mouse model of LTP peach anaphylaxis using Pru p 3 as sensitiser. This was achieved through the administration of low doses of LPS as adjuvant. The allergic response after challenge with Pru p 3 was characterised based on in vivo (temperature and symptom scores) and in vitro tests (determination of Pru p 3 specific immunoglobulins by ELISA and cellular responses in splenic cells by either immunoglobulins-secreting cell quantification, T-cell proliferation and cytokine production).
Results
Pru p 3 together with LPS induced anaphylaxis
In order to produce a mouse model of food anaphylaxis to peach, we sensitised mice intranasally with Pru p 3 (20 μg), with LPS (20 ng) or with Pru p 3 in combination with LPS (Pru p 3 + LPS) once a week for six weeks (Fig. 1). We used intranasal routes instead of oral for several reasons: (i) dose of protein needed13, (ii) the intrinsic tolerogenic capacity of the gastrointestinal route16,17,30 and (iii) the capacity of Pru p 3 to sensitise patients through inhalation31,32,33,34,35,36. One week after the final sensitisation, all mouse groups (including untreated mice) were challenged with Pru p 3 (100 μg) by intraperitoneal injection. Mice sensitised with Pru p 3 + LPS, but not those sensitised with either Pru p 3 or LPS, developed systemic anaphylaxis (Fig. 2a), consisting of a significant decrease in body temperature (p = 0.0059) and appearance of severe clinical symptoms (Fig. 2b), demonstrated by inactivity, isolation and increased respiratory rate. We did not detect any changes in the body temperature or systemic symptoms of anaphylaxis in the different control groups (untreated, sensitised with Pru p 3 or sensitised with LPS).
Pru p 3 + LPS-exposed mice produced specific IgE and IgG1 antibodies
To further explore the relationship between the in vivo symptoms of anaphylaxis and the humoral response, serum levels of Pru p 3-specific IgE and IgG1 were measured by ELISA (Fig. 3a,b). Pru p 3 + LPS sensitised mice developed an anaphylactic response with a significant increase in Pru p 3-specific IgE (p = 0.0156) and IgG1 (p = 0.039) production compared to basal. Data also showed a significant increase of Pru p 3-specific IgE levels (p = 0.0273) in mice sensitised with Pru p 3, although those Ievels were lower than Pru p 3 + LPS sensitised mice, which developed symptoms of an anaphylactic response. No significant changes in Pru p 3-specific IgG1 were observed in mice sensitised only with Pru p 3.
A correlation was found between anaphylactic symptoms and the change in specific IgE levels after the immunisation period, with more severe symptoms in those mice with higher levels of IgE antibodies to Pru p 3.
Pru p 3-specific antibody secreting cells in an ELISpot assay
We assessed the number of IgE and IgG1 secreting cells after Pru p 3 stimulation by ELISpot assay. Data showed a significant increase in the number of Pru p 3-specific IgE secreting cells in mice sensitised with Pru p 3 + LPS compared to untreated, treated with Pru p 3 only, and with LPS only (p = 0.0002, p = 0.0025 and p = 0.002, respectively). Moreover, the number of Pru p 3-specific IgE secreting cells was significantly higher in mice sensitised with Pru p 3 only compared to the untreated group (p = 0.0002).
Regarding the IgG1 secreting cells, we observed a significant increase only in mice sensitised with Pru p 3 + LPS compared to untreated, treated with Pru p 3 and with LPS (p < 0.0001 for all) (Fig. 4).
Splenocytes from Pru p 3 + LPS-exposed mice show a specific proliferative response
The generation of IgE antibodies resulting in clinical food allergy could potentially be driven by Th2 cell subsets. We determined the effects of Pru p 3 + LPS on the immunological response in terms of the functional consequences on T cell priming. Splenocytes of mice from the different groups were isolated following challenge. We then analysed the proliferative response of CD4+ and CD8+ T cell subpopulations following 4 days of incubation with Pru p 3. A significant increase in the proliferative index (PI) was only detected in the CD4+ T cell subpopulation, and only in the Pru p 3 + LPS group compared to untreated (p = 0.0068), Pru p 3 (p = 0.0001) and LPS (p = 0.0004) groups. It is important to note that, despite the presence of LPS, no proliferative response of CD8+ T cells was found. These results indicate that, although LPS is usually related to a Th1 response in which the CD8+ T cell subpopulation is involved, the sensitisation of mice with low LPS doses in the presence of Pru p 3 leads to a Th2 response (Fig. 5a).
In order to characterise the proliferative response at the molecular level, we evaluated the production of different cytokines: IL-10, indicative of the regulatory response; IL-4, indicative of the Th2 response; and IFN-γ indicative of the Th1 response. These cytokines were quantified in the culture supernatant obtained during the splenocyte proliferative response to Pru p 3 by ELISA (Fig. 5b). Data showed a significant increase in production of IL-4 and IFN-γ in mice immunised with Pru p 3 + LPS compared to untreated, treated with Pru p 3 only, and LPS only (IL-4: p = 0.0453, p = 0.0333 and p = 0.0221 respectively; IFN-γ: p = 0.0423, p = 0.0423 and p = 0.0251, respectively). Moreover, the group of mice immunised with Pru p 3 + LPS was the only one with no IL10 production (Fig. 5b). Interestingly, an IL-4-driven increase in splenocytes of the group sensitised only with Pru p 3 was not observed, suggesting that the mechanism involved in the induction of Th2 responses is dependent on Pru p 3 in the presence of LPS.
Discussion
The development of Th2 cells is believed to be a critical step in the underlying mechanisms of food allergy. However, the factors involved in the triggering of food allergen-specific Th2 activation remain poorly understood. Pru p 3 is one of the most important plant food panallergens in the Mediterranean area and can cause life-threatening reactions21,24,26. The severity of the reactions limits the use of human studies and raises the need for animal models to assess the immunological mechanisms. However, although mouse models with Pru p 3 IgE production have been generated27, no comprehensive anaphylaxis model, confirmed by both in vivo and in vitro parameters, exists. The development of such a model is critical for many applications, for example to test the safety and potential benefits of immunotherapy for food allergens.
The choice of administration route is critical for the generation of an allergy model. In the case of peach allergy, although it has been associated with the oral and gastrointestinal routes, some authors found a limited IgE antibody response that could be the consequence of the tolerance mechanisms associated with these routes16,17. Moreover, food allergic reactions may also develop following airborne sensitisation and/or challenge, as shown by Pru p 3 which can sensitise patients through both the oral and inhalational routes31,32,33,34,35,36.
Some data indicated that the tendency of some proteins to trigger the adaptive immune responses towards a Th2 pattern is due to their ability to promote TLR4 signalling28. Moreover, the allergenicity of some proteins for inducing a Th2 response could be enhanced in the presence of adjuvants37,38. In fact, it is thought that the exposure of the mucosal immune system to bacterial compounds like LPS alongside food antigens can lead to food antigen sensitisation and allergy. These bacterial products might promote allergic sensitisation via TLR4 signalling39,40. Previous studies have shown that depending on the concentration, LPS can modulate the response towards a Th1 pattern at high concentrations or enhance the induction of a Th2 response when using low levels (<100 ng)37,41.
In the present study, we have demonstrated that the Pru p 3-specific anaphylactic response can be generated after nasal sensitisation to Pru p 3 in combination with LPS as adjuvant. This anaphylactic response was demonstrated in vivo by a significant temperature drop alongside the appearance of objective symptoms of anaphylaxis in the group of Pru p 3 + LPS immunised mice. This anaphylactic model leads to higher levels of humoral Th2-mediated immunoglobulins IgE and IgG1 which agree with results observed in sensitisation models for other allergens27, obtained using a different administration route (intraperitoneally) and adjuvant (aluminium hydroxide).
It is interesting to note that although an increase of Pru p 3-specific IgE was observed in both Pru p 3 and Pru p 3 + LPS immunised mice, a significantly higher level was observed in the latter, suggesting a key role of sIgE in the clinical response. This finding potentially indicates that sIgE levels can be a biomarker for differentiating sensitisation from real allergy as has been proposed by other authors42,43. Moreover the anaphylactic group, treated with Pru p 3 + LPS, also showed a significant increase of Pru p 3 specific IgG1 that was not observed in mice sensitised with Pru p 3 only. It is tempting to speculate that high levels of sIgE together with the increase of sIgG1 may be related with the appearance of anaphylactic symptoms as has been demonstrated in patients with anaphylaxis to peach and other allergens25,44,45.
The use of some adjuvants may compromise the specific response to the allergen, and moreover, the type of response. LPS has a role in the innate immune system in the development of a Th1 response46 in which CD8+ T cells are involved. However, in our model the use of LPS in combination with Pru p 3 not only induces the specific antibody response to Pru p 3 but also leads to a Th2 response pattern, confirmed by the increase of specific IgE and IgG1 antibodies, of IgE and IgG1 secreting cells, and increased IL4 levels. Moreover, the analysis of the proliferating cell phenotype showed that the combination of Pru p 3 + LPS induced Pru p 3-specific activation of CD4+ T-lymphocytes and no proliferative response of CD8+ T cells was found. Additionally, no proliferation to Pru p 3 was found in mice sensitised with LPS alone.
Our results suggest that Pru p 3 challenge of Pru p 3 + LPS mice sensitised by the nasal route can lead to anaphylactic responses. The mechanism by which Pru p 3 + LPS exposure can elicit an adaptive response, leading to the induction of IgE and CD4+ T cells is not clear but may relate to features of the resident dendritic cells within each site, such as differential expression of innate receptors. Additionally, previous reports have shown that Th2-type responses induced in the gastrointestinal tract can influence immunophysiological responses in distant, non-inflamed mucosal tissue and regulate airway responsiveness47,48. The priming of naïve T cells to become protein specific Th2 cells requires the activation of the innate immune system to be provoked by LPS29,49 causing IgE synthesis. The proliferative response of CD4+ T cells in the presence of Pru p 3 demonstrates that the results are mediated by the adaptive immune response with T cells specific to the allergen and not the early innate immune response to LPS.
Our results suggest that LPS alongside Pru p 3 can stimulate immune cells in the upper respiratory tract and trigger a state of systemic pro-inflammation. To our knowledge, this is the first effective model of anaphylaxis caused by Pru p 3. The use of these anaphylactic mice shows great potential for testing and developing novel immunotherapy approaches for food allergens, with potential applications to other allergies.
Methods
Mice sensitisation
Female Balb/c mice (4–5 weeks old), as used in other studies50,51, were used (Janvier Lab, Saint-Berthevin Cedex, France).
All experimental animal procedures conformed to international standards of animal welfare and were approved by the Animal Experimentation Ethics Committee of BIONAND, Malaga, Spain. Mice were divided into 4 groups (N = 10 per group): (1) Untreated; (2) Treated with Pru p 3; (3) Treated with LPS; (4) Treated with both Pru p 3 and LPS (Pru p 3 + LPS). Mice were anaesthetised with inhaled Forane (Abbott Laboratories Ltd., Kent, UK) and sensitised with six nasal administrations (12 μl) of 20 μg of purified peach protein, natural Pru p 3 (Bial Laboratory, Zamudio, Spain) and/or 20 ng of LPS (InvivoGen, San Diego, CA), depending on the group, according to published studies38, on days 0, 7, 14, 21, 28 and 35 (Fig. 1). Mice were challenged 1 week after the last immunisation (day 42) by receiving one intraperitoneal dose of Pru p 3 (100 μg per mouse) (Fig. 1).
Assessment of anaphylactic responses
The appearance of systemic anaphylaxis was evaluated 30–40 minutes after challenge (day 42) in their habitual living environment that is their own cage, by measuring drop in body temperature with a rectal probe, and by assessing physical and behavioural symptoms.
Symptoms were established according to a scoring system13, 0: no symptoms; 1: scratching and rubbing around the nose and head; 2: puffiness around the eyes and mouth, diarrhoea, ‘pilar erecti’, reduced activity and/or decreased activity with increased respiratory rate; 3: wheezing, laboured respiration, and cyanosis around the mouth and the tail; 4: no activity after prodding or tremor and convulsion and 5: death. Mice were bled from the retro-orbital plexus on day 0 (Basal) and 42 (after challenge), and sera were stored at −20 °C for humoral studies. After the challenge and in vivo evaluation, mice were sacrificed by cervical dislocation and the spleen was removed aseptically and teased to prepare a single-cell suspension for cellular analysis.
Humoral response
Pru p 3-specific serum antibody (IgE and IgG1) was measured at 0 and 42 days in mice sera by ELISA. Briefly, 96-well microtiter polystyrene ELISA plates (Corning, NY, USA) were coated with 5 μg/ml of Pru p 3 in coating buffer, pH 9.6, overnight at 4 °C. Fifty μl of serum was added in duplicates (diluted 1:8 for IgE and 1:50 for IgG1) and incubated overnight at 4 °C. After washing, the plates were incubated with biotinylated labelled goat anti-mouse IgE at 1:1000 (BD Pharmingen, San Diego, CA, USA) and goat anti-mouse IgG1 at a 1:3000 dilution (BD Pharmingen) for 1 hour at room temperature. After washing, avidin-HRP (BD Pharmingen) solution at 1:5000 for IgE and 1:1000 for IgG1 was added and samples were incubated for 30 minutes at room temperature. Then, 50 μl of ready to use TMB substrate (BD Pharmingen) was added and incubated for 10 minutes in dark condition. The enzymatic reaction was stopped with 50 μl of H2SO4(2 N) and absorbance was read at 450 nm. The ELISA results were expressed in optical density.
ELISpot Assay
The number of antibody-secreting cells was measured by a modified ELISpot assay originally described by Czerkinsky et al.52. Briefly, ELISpot Multiscreen HTS plates (96 wells) (Millipore, Darmstadt, Germany) were coated overnight at 4 °C with Pru p 3 at 5 μg/mL. Plates were blocked for one hour at 37 °C with blocking solution (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO) and a total of 1.5 × 105 cells were seeded and incubated for 48 hours. After washing, 50 μl of alkaline phosphatase labelled- anti IgE at 1:1000, anti-IgG1 at 1:4000 and anti-IgM (positive control) at 1:3000 (SouthernBiotech) were added to each well and incubated overnight at 4 °C. After washing, 100 μl of ready to use solution of previously filtered NBT-BCIP (Sigma-Aldrich) was added. The colorimetric reaction was allowed to proceed until spots were clearly evident on positive-control, total-IgM-capture wells (15 minutes). The reagent and plate backing material were removed, and reactions were quenched with distilled water. The number of Ig secreting cells was determined by counting the formed spots using an ELISpot Bioreader(R) 6000 (BioSys, Karben, Germany).
Lymphocyte proliferation
Proliferation analysis was performed by flow cytometry. Spleen cells were harvested and labelled with 5,6-carboxyfluorescein diacetate N-succinimidyl ester (CFSE) using CellTrace™ CFSE Cell Proliferation Kit (Life Technologies, Invitrogen, USA) following the manufacturer’s instructions. After this, 2 × 106 cells/well were seeded in 24-well plates (Nunc, Roskilde, Denmark) in complete medium (RPMI 1640 (Lonza, BioWhittaker, Verviers, Belgium) supplemented with 2 mM of L-Glutamine (BioWhittaker, Pittsburgh, PA), gentamicin (5 μg/uL) (Normon, Madrid, Spain), streptomycin (50 ng/mL) and 10% fetal bovine serum (BioWhittaker)). Cells were incubated in absence (negative control) or presence of Pru p 3 at 5 μg/mL for 4 days at 37 °C and 5% of CO2.
After this, the cells were harvested and stained with specific fluorochrome-conjugated moAbs, antiCD4-PE and antiCD8-PE-Cy7A (BD Pharmingen) and phenotyped with a BD™ FACSCanto II flow cytometer and analysed using FlowJo® software (Tree Star, Inc. USA). Results were expressed as proliferation index (PI) for CD4+ or CD8+ measured as the ratio: %CD4+CFSEdim or %CD8+CFSEdim in stimulated sample/%CD4+CFSEdim or %CD8+CFSEdim in non-stimulated sample. Proliferative response was considered positive when the PI was higher than 2.
Cytokine production
IL-10, IL-4 and IFN-γ were determined from 72 h spleen cell culture supernatants described above using sandwich ELISA kits (BD Biosciences Pharmingen) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The results were expressed as pg/ml.
Statistical analysis
Data were presented as individual values and mean with s.d. values. Quantitative unrelated variables were analysed using the Mann-Whitney U test, Kruskal-Wallis test and X2-test. Comparisons of related samples were carried out by Wilcoxon test. Correlation analysis was performed using Pearson’s test. P-values lower than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.
Additional Information
How to cite this article: Rodriguez, M. J. et al. LPS promotes Th2 dependent sensitisation leading to anaphylaxis in a Pru p 3 mouse model. Sci. Rep. 7, 40449; doi: 10.1038/srep40449 (2017).
Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
Fernandez Rivas, M. Food allergy in Alergologica-2005. J. Investig. Allergol. Clin. Immunol. 19 Suppl 2, 37–44 (2009).
Zuidmeer, L. et al. The prevalence of plant food allergies: a systematic review. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 121, 1210–1218 e1214 (2008).
Thomas, K. et al. A multi-laboratory evaluation of a common in vitro pepsin digestion assay protocol used in assessing the safety of novel proteins. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 39, 87–98 (2004).
Fernandez-Rivas, M. et al. Apple allergy across Europe: how allergen sensitisation profiles determine the clinical expression of allergies to plant foods. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 118, 481–488 (2006).
Fernandez-Rivas, M. et al. Clinically relevant peach allergy is related to peach lipid transfer protein, Pru p 3, in the Spanish population. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 112, 789–795 (2003).
Finkelman, F. D. Anaphylaxis: lessons from mouse models. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 120, 506–515; quiz 516–507 (2007).
Untersmayr, E. & Jensen-Jarolim, E. Mechanisms of type I food allergy. Pharmacol. Ther. 112, 787–798 (2006).
Lemon-Mule, H., Nowak-Wegrzyn, A., Berin, C. & Knight, A. K. Pathophysiology of food-induced anaphylaxis. Curr. Allergy Asthma Rep. 8, 201–208 (2008).
Mills, E. N. & Mackie, A. R. The impact of processing on allergenicity of food. Curr. Opin. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 8, 249–253 (2008).
Arumugam, M. et al. Increased susceptibility of 129SvEvBrd mice to IgE-Mast cell mediated anaphylaxis. BMC Immunol. 12, 14 (2011).
Li, X. M., Schofield, B. H., Huang, C. K., Kleiner, G. I. & Sampson, H. A. A murine model of IgE-mediated cow’s milk hypersensitivity. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 103, 206–214 (1999).
Tanaka, M. et al. Impact of omega-5 gliadin on wheat-dependent exercise-induced anaphylaxis in mice. Biosci. Biotechnol. Biochem. 75, 313–317 (2011).
Li, X. M. et al. A murine model of peanut anaphylaxis: T- and B-cell responses to a major peanut allergen mimic human responses. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 106, 150–158 (2000).
Birmingham, N., Gangur, V., Samineni, S., Navuluri, L. & Kelly, C. Hazelnut Allergy: evidence that hazelnut can directly elicit specific IgE antibody response via activating type 2 cytokines in mice. Int. Arch. Allergy Immunol. 137, 295–302 (2005).
Knippels, L. M. & Penninks, A. H. Recent advances using rodent models for predicting human allergenicity. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 207, 157–160 (2005).
Dearman, R. J., Caddick, H., Stone, S., Basketter, D. A. & Kimber, I. Characterization of antibody responses induced in rodents by exposure to food proteins: influence of route of exposure. Toxicology 167, 217–231 (2001).
Chehade, M. & Mayer, L. Oral tolerance and its relation to food hypersensitivities. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 115, 3–12; quiz 13 (2005).
Fox, D. E. & Lack, G. Peanut allergy. Lancet 352, 741 (1998).
Lack, G. et al. Factors associated with the development of peanut allergy in childhood. N. Engl. J. Med. 348, 977–985 (2003).
Tordesillas, L. et al. Skin exposure promotes a Th2-dependent sensitisation to peanut allergens. J. Clin. Invest. 124, 4965–4975 (2014).
Salcedo, G., Sanchez-Monge, R., Barber, D. & Diaz-Perales, A. Plant non-specific lipid transfer proteins: an interface between plant defence and human allergy. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1771, 781–791 (2007).
Hartz, C. et al. Comparison of IgE-binding capacity, cross-reactivity and biological potency of allergenic non-specific lipid transfer proteins from peach, cherry and hazelnut. Int. Arch. Allergy Immunol. 153, 335–346 (2010).
Javaloyes, G. et al. Pru p 3 acts as a strong sensitiser for peanut allergy in Spain. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 130, 1432–1434 e1433 (2012).
Pastorello, E. A. & Robino, A. M. Clinical role of lipid transfer proteins in food allergy. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 48, 356–362 (2004).
Uasuf, C. G. et al. Different co-sensitisations could determine different risk assessment in peach allergy? Evaluation of an anaphylactic biomarker in Pru p 3 positive patients. Clin. Mol. Allergy 13, 30 (2015).
Almeida, E. M., Bartolome, B., Faria, E. G., Sousa, N. G. & Luis, A. S. Pomegranate anaphylaxis due to cross-reactivity with Peach LTP (Pru p 3). Allergol. Immunopathol. (Madr) 43, 104–106 (2015).
Toda, M. et al. Protein unfolding strongly modulates the allergenicity and immunogenicity of Pru p 3, the major peach allergen. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 128, 1022–1030 e1021–1027 (2011).
Trompette, A. et al. Allergenicity resulting from functional mimicry of a Toll-like receptor complex protein. Nature 457, 585–588 (2009).
Eisenbarth, S. C. et al. Lipopolysaccharide-enhanced, toll-like receptor 4-dependent T helper cell type 2 responses to inhaled antigen. J. Exp. Med. 196, 1645–1651 (2002).
Smit, J. J. et al. Heterogeneous responses and cross reactivity between the major peanut allergens Ara h 1, 2,3 and 6 in a mouse model for peanut allergy. Clin. Transl. Allergy 5, 13 (2015).
Sanchez-Lopez, J. et al. Role of Art v 3 in pollinosis of patients allergic to Pru p 3. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 133, 1018–1025 (2014).
Palacin, A. et al. Wheat lipid transfer protein is a major allergen associated with baker’s asthma. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 120, 1132–1138 (2007).
Enrique, E. et al. Lipid transfer protein is involved in rhinoconjunctivitis and asthma produced by rice inhalation. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 116, 926–928 (2005).
Tabar, A. I. et al. Diversity of asparagus allergy: clinical and immunological features. Clin. Exp. Allergy 34, 131–136 (2004).
Borghesan, F. et al. Respiratory allergy to lipid transfer protein. Int. Arch. Allergy Immunol. 147, 161–165 (2008).
Garcia, B. E. et al. Respiratory allergy to peach leaves and lipid-transfer proteins. Clin. Exp. Allergy 34, 291–295 (2004).
Eisenbarth, S. C., Cassel, S. & Bottomly, K. Understanding asthma pathogenesis: linking innate and adaptive immunity. Curr. Opin. Pediatr. 16, 659–666 (2004).
Zhang, Y., Zhou, X. & Zhou, B. DC-derived TSLP promotes Th2 polarization in LPS-primed allergic airway inflammation. Eur. J. Immunol. 42, 1735–1743 (2012).
Berin, M. C., Zheng, Y., Domaradzki, M., Li, X. M. & Sampson, H. A. Role of TLR4 in allergic sensitisation to food proteins in mice. Allergy 61, 64–71 (2006).
Tan, A. M. et al. TLR4 signaling in stromal cells is critical for the initiation of allergic Th2 responses to inhaled antigen. J. Immunol. 184, 3535–3544 (2010).
Gerhold, K. et al. Lipopolysaccharides modulate allergen-specific immune regulation in a murine model of mucosal tolerance induction. Int. Arch. Allergy Immunol. 147, 25–34 (2008).
Wainstein, B. K., Studdert, J., Ziegler, M. & Ziegler, J. B. Prediction of anaphylaxis during peanut food challenge: usefulness of the peanut skin prick test (SPT) and specific IgE level. Pediatr Allergy Immunol 21, 603–611 (2010).
Ciprandi, G. et al. Birch allergy and oral allergy syndrome: The practical relevance of serum immunoglobulin E to Bet v 1. Allergy Asthma Proc 37, 43–49 (2016).
Jonsson, F. et al. Mouse and human neutrophils induce anaphylaxis. J Clin Invest 121, 1484–1496 (2011).
Miyajima, I. et al. Systemic anaphylaxis in the mouse can be mediated largely through IgG1 and Fc gammaRIII. Assessment of the cardiopulmonary changes, mast cell degranulation, and death associated with active or IgE- or IgG1-dependent passive anaphylaxis. J Clin Invest 99, 901–914 (1997).
Strachan, D. P. Family size, infection and atopy: the first decade of the “hygiene hypothesis”. Thorax 55 Suppl 1, S2–10 (2000).
Forbes, E. et al. T helper-2 immunity regulates bronchial hyperresponsiveness in eosinophil-associated gastrointestinal disease in mice. Gastroenterology 127, 105–118 (2004).
Fischer, R. et al. Oral and nasal sensitisation promote distinct immune responses and lung reactivity in a mouse model of peanut allergy. Am. J. Pathol. 167, 1621–1630 (2005).
Dabbagh, K., Dahl, M. E., Stepick-Biek, P. & Lewis, D. B. Toll-like receptor 4 is required for optimal development of Th2 immune responses: role of dendritic cells. J. Immunol. 168, 4524–4530 (2002).
Liu, Y. et al. Blockade of peanut allergy with a novel Ara h 2-Fcgamma fusion protein in mice. J Allergy Clin Immunol 131, 213–221 e211–215 (2013).
Sun, J. et al. Impact of CD40 ligand, B cells, and mast cells in peanut-induced anaphylactic responses. J Immunol 179, 6696–6703 (2007).
Czerkinsky, C. et al. Reverse ELISPOT assay for clonal analysis of cytokine production. I. Enumeration of gamma-interferon-secreting cells. J. Immunol. Methods 110, 29–36 (1988).
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Mrs. Molina from the animal facility service in the Andalusian Centre for Nanomedicine & Biotechnology (BIONAND), Malaga, Spain. The study was funded by the Institute of Health “Carlos III” of the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (grants cofounded by European Regional Development Fund (ERDF): PI12/02481 and PI15/00559, Red de Reacciones Adversas a Alergenos y Farmacos RD 07/0064, RD12/0013/0001, RD07/0064/0003 and RD12/0013/0016). Andalusian Regional Ministry of Economy and Knowledge (grants cofounded by European Regional Development Fund (ERDF): CTS-7433), Nicolas Monardes Program (C-0044-2012 SAS2013), Sara Borrell Program (Ref CD14/00242) and BIO2013-41403-R.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
M.J.R. and A.A. performed the experiments, data analysis and drafted the article. M.J.T. and T.D.F. helped write and revise the article. N.C.B., F.G. and F.P. were involved in conducting the experiments and data analysis; J.R.P. was involved in data analysis and final manuscript revision. J.R. provided critical insight and helped write the manuscript; C.M. and A.D.P. conceived and designed the study and were involved in analysis and interpretation and manuscript production. All authors have read and approved the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Rights and permissions
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
About this article
Cite this article
Rodriguez, M., Aranda, A., Fernandez, T. et al. LPS promotes Th2 dependent sensitisation leading to anaphylaxis in a Pru p 3 mouse model. Sci Rep 7, 40449 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep40449
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/srep40449
- Springer Nature Limited
This article is cited by
-
Peach extract induces systemic and local immune responses in an experimental food allergy model
Scientific Reports (2023)
-
Transcriptional changes in dendritic cells underlying allergen specific induced tolerance in a mouse model
Scientific Reports (2022)
-
Egg yolk augments type 2 immunity by activating innate cells
European Journal of Nutrition (2020)
-
Glycosylated nanostructures in sublingual immunotherapy induce long-lasting tolerance in LTP allergy mouse model
Scientific Reports (2019)
-
Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus immunotherapy changes the T-regulatory cell activity
Scientific Reports (2017)