Immunological responses of mice following administration of natural rubber latex proteins by different routes of exposure.
Although the prevalence of IgE-mediated latex allergy has increased over the past decade, the circumstances which culminate in sensitization remain uncertain. The objective of these studies was to evaluate the role which sensitization route plays in the development of latex allergy using murine models representative of potential exposure routes by which health care workers (topical and respiratory) and spina bifida patients (subcutaneous) may be sensitized. BALB/c mice administered latex proteins by the subcutaneous, topical, intranasal, or intratracheal routes exhibited dose-responsive elevations in total IgE. In vitro splenocyte stimulation initially demonstrated specificity of the murine immune response to latex proteins. Subsequently, immunoblot analysis was used to compare latex-specific IgE production amongst sensitization routes. Immunoblots of IgE from subcutaneously sensitized mice demonstrated recognition of latex proteins with molecular weights near 14 kDa and 27 kDa. These protein sizes are consistent with the molecular weights of major latex allergens (Hev b 1 and Hev b 3), to which high percentages of spina bifida patients develop antibodies. Mice sensitized by intratracheal or topical administration exhibited combined IgE recognition of latex proteins near 14 kDa, 35 kDa, and 92 kDa. These molecular weights are similar to other latex allergens (Hev b 6, Hev b 2, and Hev b 4) commonly recognized by IgE of health care workers. Mice sensitized to latex proteins by topical, intranasal, or intratracheal exposures exhibited bronchoconstriction as evaluated by whole body plethysmography following respiratory challenge with latex proteins. Subcutaneously sensitized mice were unresponsive. These differences in latex-specific IgE immunoblot profiles and altered pulmonary function amongst the four different sensitization routes suggest that exposure routes leading to sensitization may play a role in determining the primary allergen(s), and the clinical manifestation of the allergic responses.
Woolhiser
M R
MR
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Morgantown, West Virginia 26505, USA.
Munson
A E
AE
Meade
B J
BJ
D000485:Allergens / Q000008:administration & dosage* / Q000276:immunology; D000818:Animals; D001985:Bronchial Provocation Tests; D016084:Bronchoconstriction / Q000187:drug effects; D003208:Concanavalin A / Q000494:pharmacology; D004195:Disease Models, Animal; D004333:Drug Administration Routes; D005260:Female; D007073:Immunoglobulin E / Q000032:analysis*; D020315:Latex Hypersensitivity / Q000276:immunology*; D008168:Lung / Q000187:drug effects; D008213:Lymphocyte Activation; D051379:Mice; D008807:Mice, Inbred BALB C; D008970:Molecular Weight; D010940:Plant Proteins / Q000008:administration & dosage* / Q000276:immunology; D010993:Plethysmography, Whole Body; D012408:Rubber / Q000008:administration & dosage*; D013154:Spleen / Q000166:cytology / Q000187:drug effects / Q000276:immunology
D000485:Allergens; D010940:Plant Proteins; D003208:Concanavalin A; D007073:Immunoglobulin E; D012408:Rubber