2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.jgeb.2017.07.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Th2 related markers in milk allergic inflammatory mice model, versus OVA

Abstract: Experimental studies on allergic asthma are limited by the high cost of the administrated allergens. In this study we tested the allergic potency of low fat milk as a cheap substitute to the widely used standard allergen, ovalbumin (OVA). BALB/c female mice (4 weeks old) were sensitized intraperitoneally with low fat milk/or OVA followed by intranasal challenge with the two allergens on days 28 and 29. At day 31, serum, bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF), and lungs were harvested. Mice of the low fat milk mod… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 40 publications
(50 reference statements)
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The cytokine pattern was in agreement with the lung histology findings from animals subjected to the allergen challenge, which showed a remarkable decrease in the allergic inflammatory response in vaccinated animals as compared with sensitized control mice. These mice showed a severe inflammatory reaction characterized by eosinophil infiltration, goblet cells, neutrophils, and increased mucus secretion; as typical features of asthma pathology ( 27 , 28 ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 92%
“…The cytokine pattern was in agreement with the lung histology findings from animals subjected to the allergen challenge, which showed a remarkable decrease in the allergic inflammatory response in vaccinated animals as compared with sensitized control mice. These mice showed a severe inflammatory reaction characterized by eosinophil infiltration, goblet cells, neutrophils, and increased mucus secretion; as typical features of asthma pathology ( 27 , 28 ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 92%