4.3 Article

Mast Cell Tryptase Levels in Gut Mucosa in Patients with Gastrointestinal Symptoms Caused by Food Allergy

Journal

INTERNATIONAL ARCHIVES OF ALLERGY AND IMMUNOLOGY
Volume 160, Issue 4, Pages 350-355

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000341634

Keywords

Tryptase; Gastrointestinal food allergy; Mast cells

Funding

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft DFG [El 150/1-1]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and Aims: Mast cells, which are important effector cells in food allergy, require a special histologic treatment for quantification in endoscopic gastrointestinal samples. The objective of this study was to investigate whether mast cell tryptase (T), a typical mast cell-associated marker, may help to detect patients with food allergy. Methods: Mast cell T was investigated from 289 colorectal samples of 73 controls, 302 samples from 43 patients with food allergy and gastrointestinal symptoms, and 72 samples from 12 patients with partial or complete remission of allergic symptoms. Endoscopically taken samples were immediately put into liquid nitrogen, mechanically homogenized by a micro-dismembrator with three homogenization steps and tissue T content (ng T/mg wet weight) was measured by fluoroenzyme immunoassay. Results: Tissue T levels from the lower gastrointestinal tract were significantly elevated (p<0.0001) in patients with manifest gastrointestinal allergy (median: 55.7, range: 9.3-525.0) compared with controls (median: 33.5, range: 8.0-154.6). A subgroup of 12 patients with remission of allergy showed markedly decreased symptom scores and mucosal T levels after more than 1 year of antiallergic therapy (pretreatment median: 54.1, range: 37.0-525.0 and post-treatment median: 28.4, range: 19.8-69.1; p = 0.01). Conclusions: High T levels in the gut of food-allergic patients support the role of stimulated mast cells or an increased mast cell number. Copyright (C) 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available