Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T01:27:27.546Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison of the antigenicity of soya-bean-based infant formulas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

L. M. J. Heppell ,
J. W. Sissons  and
H. E. Pedersen
L. M. J. Heppell
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute for Grassland and Animal Production, Church Lane, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9AQ, Berkshire
J. W. Sissons
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute for Grassland and Animal Production, Church Lane, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9AQ, Berkshire
H. E. Pedersen
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute for Grassland and Animal Production, Church Lane, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9AQ, Berkshire
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. The antigenicity of four soya-bean-based infant formulas (Prosobee powder, Prosobee liquid concentrate (Mead Johnson, Uxbridge, Middx), Wysoy (Wyeth, Maidenhead, Berks) and Formula S (Cow and Gate, Trowbridge, Wilts)) was measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) specific for glycinin and β-conglycinin. Results were compared with in vivo assessments of antigenicity using guinea-pigs, rabbits and calves.

2. The levels of antigenic glycinin and β-conglycinin in Wysoy and Formula S were below the limits of detection of the ELISA. Both these proteins were detected in Prosobee powder and Prosobee liquid concentrate with the highest levels, especially for glycinin, being present in Prosobee powder.

3. Wysoy was sufficiently antigenic to evoke a soya-bean-specific serum antibody response in rabbits injected with this formula emulsified in complete Freunds adjuvant. A significantly greater response was obtained when rabbits were similarly injected with Prosobee powder.

4. The formulas varied in their ability to sensitize guinea-pigs for both anaphylaxis and antibody production when given orally, although the differences were not statistically significant. Prosobee powder appeared to be the most antigenic and Formula S the least, with Prosobee liquid concentrate and Wysoy being intermediate.

5. Similar variations in antigenicity were observed when Prosobee powder, Wysoy and Formula S were fed to soya-bean-sensitive calves. These formulas were all capable of provoking intestinal disturbances (seen as increased ileal flow-rate, decreased small intestinal transit time and decreased nitrogen absorption) but the most severe reactions were seen when Prosobee powder was fed and the least with Formula S.

6. Thus the four soya-bean-based infant formulas showed considerable differences in antigenicity. In vivo studies using guinea-pigs, rabbits and calves were in good agreement and broadly correlated with the immunochemical assessment of antigenicity. However, the in vitro and in vivo results did not correspond exactly and levels of glycinin and β-conglycinin below the limit of detection by ELISA could evoke an immune response in the different animal species. We believe that these variations in antigenicity of different commercial products prepared from isolated soya-bean protein may be important when interpreting the results from studies of the development of allergy in infants given soya-bean-based formulas.

Type
Clinical and Human Nutrition papers: Other Studies Relevant to Human Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 58 , Issue 3 , November 1987 , pp. 393 - 403
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1987

References

REFERENCES

Bleumink, E. (1970). World Review of Nutrition and Dietetics 12, 505–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bleumink, E. (1979). In Immunology of the Gastrointestinal Tract, pp. 195–213. [Asquith, P. and Gell, P. G. H., editors]. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone.Google Scholar
Dosa, S., Pesce, A. J., Ford, D. J., Muckerheide, A. & Michael, J. G. (1979). Immunology 38, 509–517.Google Scholar
Eastham, E. J., Lichauco, T., Grady, M. I. & Allan Walker, W. (1978). Journal of Pediatrics 93, 561–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glaser, J. & Johnstone, D. E. (1953). Journal of the American Medical Association 153, 620–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haddad, Z. H., Verma, S. & Kalra, V. (1979). Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 63, 198.Google Scholar
Halpern, S. R., Sellars, W. A., Johnson, R. B., Anderson, D. W., Saperstein, S. & Reisch, J. S. (1973). Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 51, 139–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halpin, T. C., Byrne, W. J. & Ament, M. E. (1977). Journal of Pediatrics 91, 404–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heppell, L. M. J., Cant, A. J. & Kilshaw, P. J. (1984). British Journal of Nutrition 51, 29–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heppell, L. M. J. (1985). In Immunoassays in Food Analysis, pp. 115–123. [Morns, B. A. and Clifford, M. N., editors]. London: Elsevier Applied Science Publishers.Google Scholar
Hunt, J. N. & Stubbs, D. F. (1975). Journal of Physiology 245, 209–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kilshaw, P. J., McEwan, F. J., Baker, K. C. & Cant, A. J. (1986). Clinical and Experimental Immunology 66, 481–489.Google Scholar
Kilshaw, P. J. & Sissons, J. W. (1979 a). Research in Veterinary Science 27, 366–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kilshaw, P. J. & Sissons, J. W. (1979 b). Research in Veterinary Science 27, 361–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kilshaw, P. J. & Slade, H. (1982). Research in Veterinary Science 33, 305–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kjellman, N.-I. M. & Johansson, S. G. O. (1979). Clinical Allergy 9, 347–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaughlan, P., Anderson, K. J., Widdowson, E. M. & Coombs, R. R. A. (1981). Archives of Disease in Childhood 56, 165–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
May, C. D., Fomon, S. J. & Remigio, L. (1982). Acta Paediatrica Scandinavica 71, 43–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pedersen, H. E. & Sissons, J. W. (1984). Canadian Journal of Animal Science 64, 183–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perkkiö, M., Savilahti, E. & Kuitunen, P. (1981). European Journal of Pediatrics 137, 63–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, G. K. (1978). Journal of Pediatrics 93, 553–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ratner, B., Untracht, S., Crawford, L. V., Malone, H. J. & Retsina, M. (1955). American Journal of Diseases of Children 89, 187–193.Google Scholar
Sissons, J. W. (1983). Journal of Dairy Research 50, 387–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sissons, J. W. & Smith, R. H. (1976). British Journal of Nutrition 36, 421–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sissons, J. W., Smith, R. H. & Hewitt, D. (1979). British Journal of Nutrition 42, 477–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spies, J. R., Stevan, M. E., Stein, W. J. & Coulson, E. J. (1970). Journal of Allergy 45, 208–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stobo, I. J. F., Ganderton, P. & Connors, H. (1983). Animal Production 36, 512–513.Google Scholar
Voller, A., Bidwell, D. E. & Bartlett, A. (1976). Bulletin of the World Health Organization 53, 55–65.Google Scholar
Wright, R. N. & Rothberg, R. M. (1971). Journal of Immunology 107, 1410–1418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar