<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="/rss.css" type="text/css"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/"
    xmlns:cc="http://web.resource.org/cc/"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:extra="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
    xmlns:prism="http://prismstandard.org/namespaces/1.2/basic/"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
    <channel rdf:about="http://www.aacijournal.com/feeds/latestarticles/journal?quantity=&amp;format=rss&amp;version=">
        <title>Allergy, Asthma &amp; Clinical Immunology - Latest Articles</title>
        <link>http://www.aacijournal.com</link>
        <description>The latest research articles published by Allergy, Asthma &amp; Clinical Immunology</description>
        <dc:date>2012-05-16T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <items>
            <rdf:Seq>
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.aacijournal.com/content/8/1/5" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.aacijournal.com/content/8/1/4" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.aacijournal.com/content/8/1/3" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.aacijournal.com/content/8/1/2" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.aacijournal.com/content/8/1/1" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.aacijournal.com/content/7/1/22" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.aacijournal.com/content/7/1/21" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.aacijournal.com/content/7/1/20" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.aacijournal.com/content/7/1/19" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.aacijournal.com/content/7/1/18" />
                            </rdf:Seq>
        </items>
                 <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </channel>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.aacijournal.com/content/8/1/5">
        <title>Skin prick testing with extensively heated milk or egg products helps predict the outcome of an oral food challenge: a retrospective analysis</title>
        <description>Background:
Cow&apos;s milk and hen&apos;s egg are the most frequently encountered food allergens in the pediatric population. Skin prick testing (SPT) with commercial extracts followed by an oral food challenge (OFC) are routinely performed in the diagnostic investigation of these children. Recent evidence suggests that milk-allergic and/or egg-allergic individuals can often tolerate extensively heated (EH) forms of these foods. This study evaluated the predictive value of a negative SPT with EH milk or egg in determining whether a child would tolerate an OFC to the EH food product.
Methods:
Charts from a single allergy clinic were reviewed for any patient with a negative SPT to EH milk or egg, prepared in the form of a muffin. Data collected included age, sex, symptoms of food allergy, co-morbidities and the success of the OFC to the muffin.
Results:
Fifty-eight patients had negative SPTs to the EH milk or egg in a muffin and underwent OFC to the appropriate EH food in the outpatient clinic. Fifty-five of these patients tolerated the OFC. The negative predictive value for the SPT with the EH food product was 94.8%.
Conclusions:
SPT with EH milk or egg products was predictive of a successful OFC to the same food. Larger prospective studies are required to substantiate these findings.</description>
        <link>http://www.aacijournal.com/content/8/1/5</link>
                <dc:creator>Zein Faraj</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Harold Kim</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Allergy, Asthma &amp; Clinical Immunology 2012, null:5</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2012-05-16T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1710-1492-8-5</dc:identifier>
                                <prism:require>/content/figures/1710-1492-8-5-toc.gif</prism:require>
                <prism:publicationName>Allergy, Asthma &amp; Clinical Immunology</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1710-1492</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>${item.volume}</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>5</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2012-05-16T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>PDF</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.aacijournal.com/content/8/1/4">
        <title>Management of anaphylaxis in schools: Evaluation of an epinephrine auto-injector (EpiPen(R)) use by school personnel and comparison of two approaches of soliciting participation</title>
        <description>Background:
There has been no large study characterizing selection bias in allergy and evaluating school personnel&apos;s ability to use an epinephrine auto-injector (EpiPen(R)). Our objective was to determine if the consent process introduces selection bias by comparing 2 methods of soliciting participation of school personnel in a study evaluating their ability to demonstrate the EpiPen(R).
Methods:
School personnel from randomly selected schools in Quebec were approached using a 1) partial or 2) full disclosure approach and were assessed on their ability to use the EpiPen(R) and identify anaphylaxis.
Results:
343 school personnel participated. In the full disclosure group, the participation rate was lower: 21.9% (95%CI, 19.0%-25.2%) versus 40.7% (95%CI, 36.1%-45.3%), but more participants achieved a perfect score: 26.3% (95%CI, 19.6%-33.9%) versus 15.8% (95%CI, 10.8%-21.8%), and identified 3 signs of anaphylaxis: 71.8% (95%CI, 64.0%-78.7%) versus 55.6% (95%CI, 48.2%-62.9%).
Conclusions:
Selection bias is suspected as school personnel who were fully informed of the purpose of the assessment were less likely to participate; those who participated among the fully informed were more likely to earn perfect scores and identify anaphylaxis. As the process of consent can influence participation and bias outcomes, researchers and Ethics Boards need to consider conditions under which studies can proceed without full consent. Despite training, school personnel perform poorly when asked to demonstrate the EpiPen(R).</description>
        <link>http://www.aacijournal.com/content/8/1/4</link>
                <dc:creator>Nha Uyen Nguyen Luu</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Lisa Cicutto</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Lianne Soller</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Lawrence Joseph</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Susan Waserman</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Yvan St-Pierre</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Ann Clarke</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Allergy, Asthma &amp; Clinical Immunology 2012, null:4</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2012-04-26T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1710-1492-8-4</dc:identifier>
                            <dc:title>Prior knowledge skews results</dc:title>
                            <dc:description>Where the purpose of studies into participants&apos; &quot;knowledge&quot; is disclosed prior to enrolment there may be a bias towards participants that are confident on the subject. Future study designs should take this into account.</dc:description>
                <prism:require>/content/figures/1710-1492-8-4-toc.gif</prism:require>
                <prism:publicationName>Allergy, Asthma &amp; Clinical Immunology</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1710-1492</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>${item.volume}</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>4</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2012-04-26T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>PDF</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.aacijournal.com/content/8/1/3">
        <title>What are the beliefs of pediatricians and dietitians regarding complementary food introduction to prevent allergy?</title>
        <description>Background:
The timing of complementary food introduction is controversial. Providing information on the timing of dietary introduction is crucial to the primary prevention of food allergy. The American Academy of Pediatrics offers dietary recommendations that were updated in 2008.ObjectiveIdentify the recommendations that general pediatricians and registered dietitians provide to parents and delineate any differences in counselling.
Methods:
A 9-item survey was distributed to pediatricians and dietitians online and by mail. Information on practitioner type, gender, length of practice and specific recommendations regarding complementary food introduction and exposure was collected.
Results:
181 surveys were returned with a 54% response rate from pediatricians. It was not possible to calculate a meaningful dietitian response rate due to overlapping email databases. 52.5% of all respondents were pediatricians and 45.9% were dietitians. The majority of pediatricians and dietitians advise mothers that peanut abstinence during pregnancy and lactation is unnecessary. Dietitians were more likely to counsel mothers to breastfeed their infants to prevent development of atopic dermatitis than pediatricians. Hydrolyzed formulas for infants at risk of developing allergy were the top choice of formula amongst both practitioners. For food allergy prevention, pediatricians were more likely to recommend delayed introduction of peanut and egg, while most dietitians recommended no delay in allergenic food introduction.
Conclusions:
In the prophylaxis of food allergy, pediatricians are less aware than dietitians of the current recommendation that there is no benefit in delaying allergenic food introduction beyond 4 to 6 months. More dietitians than pediatricians believe that breastfeeding decreases the risk of atopic dermatitis. Practitioners may benefit from increased awareness of current guidelines.</description>
        <link>http://www.aacijournal.com/content/8/1/3</link>
                <dc:creator>Sara Leo</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>John Dean</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Edmond Chan</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Allergy, Asthma &amp; Clinical Immunology 2012, null:3</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2012-03-21T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1710-1492-8-3</dc:identifier>
                                <prism:require>/content/figures/1710-1492-8-3-toc.gif</prism:require>
                <prism:publicationName>Allergy, Asthma &amp; Clinical Immunology</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1710-1492</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>${item.volume}</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>3</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2012-03-21T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.aacijournal.com/content/8/1/2">
        <title>No systemic reactions to influenza vaccination in egg-sensitized tertiary-care pediatric patients</title>
        <description>Background:
There are numerous, disparate guidelines for influenza vaccination in egg-allergic patients. We aimed to describe the outcome of selectively applied guidelines, based on risk-stratification, to our high risk, egg-allergic, tertiary-care pediatric population.
Methods:
Egg allergy was confirmed with skin testing. The vaccine administered was an adjuvunated 2009 H1N1 influenza A vaccine with &lt; 0.165 mcg/ml ovalbumin. Patients with mild egg allergy were to receive the vaccination in 1 dose, those with severe egg allergy were to receive 2 split doses, and patients with exquisite egg allergy or significant co-morbidities were to be skin tested with the vaccine (prick full strength, intradermal 1:100 of final concentration without adjuvant) and had 5 step desensitization if the testing was positive, or 1-2 step administration if negative. Patients were observed for 60 minutes after the final dose and anaphylaxis treatment was available. We report the frequency of allergic reactions.
Results:
Ninety-nine patients were referred and 79 had positive egg testing. Asthma was present in 67% and 30% had prior anaphylaxis to egg. We vaccinated 77 of 79 patients: 71 without performing vaccine skin testing. Two refused vaccination. No patient had a systemic reaction or required treatment. Two patients experienced positive testing to the adjuvanated intradermal vaccine, but were negative without adjuvant.
Conclusions:
Our results suggest that most egg-allergic tertiary care pediatric patients can be vaccinated with a low ovalbumin content influenza vaccine without prior vaccine testing. Vaccine skin testing, if used at all, can be reserved for special circumstances. The squalene adjuvant may cause an irritant reaction with intradermal testing.</description>
        <link>http://www.aacijournal.com/content/8/1/2</link>
                <dc:creator>Julia Elizabeth Mainwaring Upton</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>David Brian Hummel</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Anna Kasprzak</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Adelle Roberta Atkinson</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Allergy, Asthma &amp; Clinical Immunology 2012, null:2</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2012-03-02T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1710-1492-8-2</dc:identifier>
                                <prism:require>/content/figures/1710-1492-8-2-toc.gif</prism:require>
                <prism:publicationName>Allergy, Asthma &amp; Clinical Immunology</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1710-1492</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>${item.volume}</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>2</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2012-03-02T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.aacijournal.com/content/8/1/1">
        <title>Basophil activation test compared to skin prick test and fluorescence enzyme immunoassay for aeroallergen-specific Immunoglobulin-E </title>
        <description>Background:
Skin prick test (SPT) and fluorescence enzyme immunoassay (FEIA) are widely used for the diagnosis of Immunoglobulin-E (IgE)-mediated allergic disease. Basophil activation test (BAT) could obviate disadvantages of SPT and FEIA. However, it is not known whether BAT gives similar results as SPT or FEIA for aeroallergens.ObjectivesIn this study, we compared the results of SPT, BAT and FEIA for different aeroallergens.
Methods:
We performed BAT, SPT and FEIA in 41 atopic subjects (symptomatic and with positive SPT for at least 1 of 9 common aeroallergens) and 31 non-atopic subjects (asymptomatic and with negative SPT).
Results:
Correlations between SPT and BAT, SPT and FEIA, and BAT and FEIA results were statistically significant but imperfect. Using SPT as the &quot;gold standard&quot;, BAT and FEIA were similar in sensitivity. However, BAT had lower specificity than FEIA. False positive (BATposSPTneg) results were frequent in those atopic subjects who were allergic by SPT to a different allergen and rare in non-atopic subjects. The false positivity in atopic subjects was due in part to high levels of serum Total-IgE (T-IgE) levels in atopic individuals that lead to basophil activation upon staining with fluorochrome-labeled anti-IgE.
Conclusion:
As an alternative to SPT in persons allergic to aeroallergens, BAT in its present form is useful for distinguishing atopic from non-atopic persons. However, BAT in its present form is less specific than FEIA when determining the allergen which a patient is allergic to. This is due to IgE staining-induced activation of atopic person&apos;s basophils and/or nonspecific hyperreactivity of atopic person&apos;s basophils.</description>
        <link>http://www.aacijournal.com/content/8/1/1</link>
                <dc:creator>Faisal Khan</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Aito Ueno-Yamanouchi</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Bazir Serushago</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Tom Bowen</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Andrew Lyon</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Cathy Lu</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Jan Storek</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Allergy, Asthma &amp; Clinical Immunology 2012, null:1</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2012-01-20T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1710-1492-8-1</dc:identifier>
                            <dc:title>BAT less specific than FEIA and SPT</dc:title>
                            <dc:description>Basophil Activation Testing may be a useful alternative to a skin prick test or fluorescent enzymoimmunoassay for distinguishing atopic from non-atopic persons, however it is less allergen-specific.</dc:description>
                <prism:require>/content/figures/1710-1492-8-1-toc.gif</prism:require>
                <prism:publicationName>Allergy, Asthma &amp; Clinical Immunology</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1710-1492</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>${item.volume}</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>1</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2012-01-20T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.aacijournal.com/content/7/1/22">
        <title>Mucosal exposure to cockroach extract induces allergic sensitization and allergic airway inflammation</title>
        <description>Background:
Allergic sensitization to aeroallergens develops in response to mucosal exposure to these allergens. Allergic sensitization may lead to the development of asthma, which is characterized by chronic airway inflammation. The objective of this study is to describe in detail a model of mucosal exposure to cockroach allergens in the absence of an exogenous adjuvant.
Methods:
Cockroach extract (CE) was administered to mice intranasally (i.n.) daily for 5 days, and 5 days later mice were challenged with CE for 4 consecutive days. A second group received CE i.n. for 3 weeks. Airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR) was assessed 24 h after the last allergen exposure. Allergic airway inflammation was assessed by BAL and lung histology 48 h after the last allergen exposure. Antigen-specific antibodies were assessed in serum. Lungs were excised from mice from measurement of cytokines and chemokines in whole lung lysate.
Results:
Mucosal exposure of Balb/c mice to cockroach extract induced airway eosinophilic inflammation, AHR and cockroach-specific IgG1; however, AHR to methacholine was absent in the long term group. Lung histology showed patchy, multicentric damage with inflammatory infiltrates at the airways in both groups. Lungs from mice from the short term group showed increased IL-4, CCL11, CXCL1 and CCL2 protein levels. IL4 and CXCL1 were also increased in the BAL of cockroach-sensitized mice in the short-term protocol.
Conclusions:
Mucosal exposure to cockroach extract in the absence of adjuvant induces allergic airway sensitization characterized by AHR, the presence of Th2 cytokines in the lung and eosinophils in the airways.</description>
        <link>http://www.aacijournal.com/content/7/1/22</link>
                <dc:creator>Narcy Arizmendi</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Melanie Abel</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Lakshmi Puttagunda</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Muhammad Asaduzzaman</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Courtney Davidson</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Khalil Karimi</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Paul Forsythe</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Harissios Vliagoftis</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Allergy, Asthma &amp; Clinical Immunology 2011, null:22</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2011-12-14T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1710-1492-7-22</dc:identifier>
                                <prism:require>/content/figures/1710-1492-7-22-toc.gif</prism:require>
                <prism:publicationName>Allergy, Asthma &amp; Clinical Immunology</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1710-1492</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>${item.volume}</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>22</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2011-12-14T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.aacijournal.com/content/7/1/21">
        <title>Efficacy and Onset of Action of Mometasone Furoate/Formoterol and Fluticasone Propionate/Salmeterol Combination Treatment in Subjects With Persistent Asthma</title>
        <description>Background:
Mometasone furoate/formoterol (MF/F) is a novel combination therapy for treatment of persistent asthma. This noninferiority trial compared the effects of MF/F and fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/S) combination therapies on pulmonary function and onset of action in subjects with persistent asthma.
Methods:
Following a 2- to 4-week run-in period with MF administered via a metered-dose inhaler (MDI) 200 &#956;g (delivered as 2 inhalations of MF-MDI 100 &#956;g) twice daily (BID), subjects (aged &#8805;12 y) were randomized to MF/F-MDI 200/10 &#956;g BID (delivered as 2 inhalations of MF/F-MDI 100/5 &#956;g) or FP/S administered via a dry powder inhaler (DPI) 250/50 &#956;g (delivered as 1 inhalation) BID for 12 weeks. The primary assessment was change from baseline to week 12 in area under the curve for forced expiratory volume in 1 second measured serially for 0-12 hours postdose (FEV1 AUC0-12 h). Secondary assessments included onset of action (change from baseline in FEV1 at 5 minutes postdose on day 1) and patient-reported outcomes.
Results:
722 subjects were randomized to MF/F-MDI (n = 371) or FP/S-DPI (n = 351). Mean FEV1 AUC0-12 h change from baseline at week 12 for MF/F-MDI and FP/S-DPI was 3.43 and 3.24 L &#215; h, respectively (95% CI, -0.40 to 0.76). MF/F-MDI was associated with a 200-mL mean increase from baseline in FEV1 at 5 minutes postdose on day 1, which was significantly larger than the 90-mL increase for FP/S-DPI (P &lt; 0.001). The overall incidence of adverse events during the 12-week treatment period that were considered related to study therapy was similar in both groups (MF/F-MDI, 7.8% [n = 29]; FP/S-DPI, 8.3% [n = 29]).
Conclusions:
The results of this 12-week study indicated that MF/F improves pulmonary function and asthma control similar to FP/S with a superior onset of action compared with FP/S. Both drugs were safe, improved asthma control, and demonstrated similar results for other secondary study endpoints.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00424008</description>
        <link>http://www.aacijournal.com/content/7/1/21</link>
                <dc:creator>David Bernstein</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Jacques Hebert</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Amarjit Cheema</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Kevin Murphy</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Ivan Cherrez-Ojeda</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Carlos Eduardo Matiz-Bueno</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Wen-Ling Kuo</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Hendrik Nolte</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Allergy, Asthma &amp; Clinical Immunology 2011, null:21</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2011-12-07T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1710-1492-7-21</dc:identifier>
                                <prism:require>/content/figures/1710-1492-7-21-toc.gif</prism:require>
                <prism:publicationName>Allergy, Asthma &amp; Clinical Immunology</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1710-1492</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>${item.volume}</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>21</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2011-12-07T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.aacijournal.com/content/7/1/20">
        <title>Effects of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG supplementation on cow&apos;s milk allergy in a mouse model  </title>
        <description>Background:
Cow&apos;s milk allergy (CMA) is one of the most prevalent human food-borne allergies, particularly in infants and young children from developed countries. Our study aims to evaluate the effects of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG (LGG) administration on CMA development using whole cow&apos;s milk proteins (CMP) sensitized Balb/C mice by two different sensitization methods.
Methods:
LGG supplemented mice were either sensitized orally with CMP and cholera toxin B-subunit (CTB) as adjuvant, or intraperitoneally (IP) with CMP but without the adjuvant. Mice were then orally challenged with CMP and allergic responses were accessed by monitoring hypersensitivity scores, measuring the levels of CMP-specific immunoglobulins (IgG1, IgG2a and IgG) and total IgE from sera, and cytokines (IL-4 and IFN-&#947;) from spleen lysates.
Results:
Sensitization to CMP was successful only in IP sensitized mice, but not in orally sensitized mice with CMP and CTB. Interestingly, LGG supplementation appeared to have reduced cow&apos;s milk allergy (CMA) in the IP group of mice, as indicated by lowered allergic responses.
Conclusions:
Adjuvant-free IP sensitization with CMP was successful in inducing CMA in the Balb/C mice model. LGG supplementation favourably modulated immune reactions by shifting Th2-dominated trends toward Th1-dominated responses in CMP sensitized mice. Our results also suggest that oral sensitization by the co-administration of CMP and CTB, as adjuvant, might not be appropriate to induce CMA in mice.</description>
        <link>http://www.aacijournal.com/content/7/1/20</link>
                <dc:creator>Cin Thang</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Bushansingh Baurhoo</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Joyce Boye</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Benjamin Simpson</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Xin Zhao</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Allergy, Asthma &amp; Clinical Immunology 2011, null:20</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2011-12-06T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1710-1492-7-20</dc:identifier>
                                <prism:require>/content/figures/1710-1492-7-20-toc.gif</prism:require>
                <prism:publicationName>Allergy, Asthma &amp; Clinical Immunology</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1710-1492</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>${item.volume}</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>20</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2011-12-06T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.aacijournal.com/content/7/1/19">
        <title>VIP Regulates the Development &amp; Proliferation of Treg in vivo in spleen</title>
        <description>Background:
Mounting evidence supports a key role for VIP as an anti-inflammatory agent and promoter of immune tolerance. It suppresses TNF-&#945; and other inflammatory cytokines and chemokines, upregulates anti-inflammatory IL-10, and promotes immune tolerant cells called T regulatory (Treg) cells. VIP KO mice have recently been demonstrated to have spontaneous airway and pulmonary perivascular inflammatory responses, as part of asthma-like and pulmonary hypertension phenotypes, respectively. Both inflammatory responses are correctable with VIP. Focusing on this model, we have now investigated the influence of VIP not only on inflammatory cells but also on Treg cells.
Methods:
Using flow cytometric analysis, we examined the relative preponderance of CD25+CD4+ cells and anti-inflammatory Treg cells, in extracts of thymus and spleen from VIP KO mice (5 VIP KO; 5 VIP KO+ VIP; 10 wild-type). This method allowed antibody-based flow cytometric identification of Treg cells using surface markers CD25 and CD4, along with the: 1) intracellular activation marker FoxP3; and 2) Helios, which distinguishes cells of thymic versus splenic derivation.
Conclusions:
Deletion of the VIP gene results in: 1) CD25+CD4- cell accumulation in the thymus, which is corrected by VIP treatment; 2) more Treg in thymus lacking Foxp3 expression, suggesting VIP is necessary for immune tolerance; and, 3) a tendency towards deficiency of Treg cells in the spleen, which is normalized by VIP treatment. Treg lacking Helios are induced by VIP intrasplenically rather than by migration from the thymus. These results confirm the dual role of VIP as an anti-inflammatory and immune tolerance-promoting agent.</description>
        <link>http://www.aacijournal.com/content/7/1/19</link>
                <dc:creator>Anthony Szema</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Sayyed Hamidi</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Marc Golightly</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Todd Rueb</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>John Chen</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Allergy, Asthma &amp; Clinical Immunology 2011, null:19</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2011-11-29T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1710-1492-7-19</dc:identifier>
                            <dc:title>VIP knockout confirms role in immune tolerance</dc:title>
                            <dc:description>Vasoactive Intestinal Peptide knockout mice show increased CD25+CD4- cells and reduced regulatory T lymphocyctes, both corrected by the addition of VIP, confirming a dual role for VIP as an anti-inflammatory agent and immune tolerance promoter.</dc:description>
                <prism:require>/content/figures/1710-1492-7-19-toc.gif</prism:require>
                <prism:publicationName>Allergy, Asthma &amp; Clinical Immunology</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1710-1492</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>${item.volume}</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>19</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2011-11-29T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.aacijournal.com/content/7/1/18">
        <title>A challenging diagnosis of alpha-1-antitrypsin deficiency: identification of a patient with a novel F/Null phenotype</title>
        <description>Alpha-1-antitrypsin (A1AT) deficiency is a genetic disease characterized by low levels and/or function of A1AT protein. A1AT deficiency can result in the development of COPD, liver disease, and certain skin conditions. The disease can be diagnosed by demonstrating a low level of A1AT protein and genotype screening for S and Z mutations, which are the most common. However, there are many genetic variants in A1AT deficiency, and this screening may miss rarer cases, such as those caused by dysfunctional protein. We identified a patient with a previously unreported F/null phenotype that was missed by routine screening. This case highlights the wide variation in possible mutations, limitations in diagnostics, and the importance of combining clinical suspicion with measurement of protein levels, phenotypic analysis, and in appropriate cases expanded genetic analysis.</description>
        <link>http://www.aacijournal.com/content/7/1/18</link>
                <dc:creator>Michael Ringenbach</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Erin Banta</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Melissa Snyder</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Timothy Craig</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Faoud Ishmael</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Allergy, Asthma &amp; Clinical Immunology 2011, null:18</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2011-11-13T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1710-1492-7-18</dc:identifier>
                                <prism:require>/content/figures/1710-1492-7-18-toc.gif</prism:require>
                <prism:publicationName>Allergy, Asthma &amp; Clinical Immunology</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1710-1492</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>${item.volume}</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>18</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2011-11-13T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <cc:License rdf:about="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/">
        <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Reproduction" />
        <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Distribution" />
        <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#DerivativeWorks" />
    </cc:License>
</rdf:RDF>

