Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T22:04:02.761Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Immune reactivity against a variety of mammalian milks and plant-based milk substitutes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 August 2018

Aristo Vojdani ,
Chris Turnpaugh  and
Elroy Vojdani
Aristo Vojdani*
Affiliation:
Immunosciences Lab., Inc., Los Angeles CA, USA Department of Preventive Medicine, Loma Linda University School of Medicine, Loma Linda CA 92350, USA
Chris Turnpaugh
Affiliation:
Turnpaugh Health and Wellness Center, Mechanicsburg PA 17050, USA
Elroy Vojdani
Affiliation:
Regenera Medical, Los Angeles CA 90025, USA
*
*For correspondence; e-mail: drari@msn.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The research reported here seeks to evaluate the allergenicity and antigenicity of different mammalian and plant-based milks/milk substitutes in healthy subjects. We used ELISA to measure IgE and IgG antibodies against cow, goat, sheep, camel, human milks, and soy, almond, and coconut plant-based milk substitutes, as well as IgA antibodies against all these apart from human milk, in 500 individuals in order to find the percentage of antibody elevation. IgG and IgE positivity showed that human milk was the least antigenic and allergenic, followed by camel milk. Cow's milk showed the highest percentage of elevation or reactivity. Among plant-based milk substitutes, the almond-based substitute was the most allergenic with the highest IgE reactivity, while the coconut milk substitute was lowest. For IgG and IgA immuno-reactivity, soy was first, with coconut again the lowest. We found IgE and IgG immune reactivity against coconut, almond and soymilks in some individuals who were non-reactive to mammalian milk, therefore, we should not assume that consumption of these milks is automatically without risk of allergenic response. We selected 24 samples out of the original 500 for the measurement of IgE antibodies against five different types of cow's milk, from non-organic to organic, A1 and A2. Statistical variance analysis detected no significant difference in IgE, IgG and IgA immune reactivities of the five different cow milks. Our results showed that if an individual is immuno-reactive to cow's milk, organic or not, the probability of reacting to goat and sheep milk is very high. Overall, the results presented here showed that for individuals allergic to cow's milk, the least allergenic alternatives in descending order are human, camel, sheep, and goat milks. Before choosing an alternative for cow's milk, one must go through accurate and quantitative blood testing for determination of IgE, IgG and IgA antibodies against different mammalian and plant-based milks/milk substitutes.

Keywords

Milkalternativeallergenicityantigenicityimmuno-reactive
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 85 , Issue 3 , August 2018 , pp. 358 - 365
Copyright
Copyright © Hannah Dairy Research Foundation 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agrawal, RP, Swami, SC, Beniwal, R, Kochar, DK & Kotbari, RP 2002 Effect of camel milk on glycemic control, risk factors and diabetes quality of life in type 1 diabetes: a randomized prospective controlled study. International Journal Diabetes Development Country 22 70–74Google Scholar
Al Hashem, F 2009 Camel's milk protects against aluminum chloride-induced toxicity in the liver and kidney of white albino rats. American Journal of Biochemistry and Biotechnology 5 98–108Google Scholar
American Academy of Pediatrics 2000 Committee on nutrition. Hypoallergenic infant formula. Pediatrics 106 354–359Google Scholar
Boehm, G & Stahl, B 2007 Oligosaccharides from milk. Journal of Nutrition 137 847S–849SGoogle Scholar
Dallas, DC, Murray, NM, Gan, J 2015 Proteolytic systems in milk: perspectives on the evolutionary function within the mammary gland and the infant. Journal of Mammary Gland Biology and Neoplasia 20 133–147Google Scholar
De Noni, I 2008 Release of β-casomorphins 5 and 7 during simulated gastro-intestinal digestion of bovine β-casein variants and milk-based infant formulas. Food Chemistry 110 897–903Google Scholar
El Agamy, EL 2007 The challenges of cow's milk protein allergy. Small Ruminant Research 68 64–72Google Scholar
El Fakharany, EM, Abedelbaky, N, Haroum, BM, Sanchez, L, Redwan, NA & Redwan, EM 2012 Anti-infectivity of camel polyclonal antibodies against hepatitis C virus in Huh7.5 hepatoma. Virology Journal 9 201Google Scholar
El Hatmi, H, Girardet, JM, Gaillard, JL, Yahyaoui, MH & Attia, H 2007 Characterization of whey proteins of camel (Camelus dromedarius) milk and colostrums. Small Ruminant Research 70 267–271Google Scholar
El Hatmi, H, Jrad, Z, Khorchani, T, Dary, A & Girardet, JM 2014 Fast protein liquid chromatography of camel alpha-lactalbumin fraction with radical scavenging activity. Emirate Journal of Food and Agriculture 4 309–316Google Scholar
El Hatmi, H, Jrad, Z, Salhi, I & Khorchani, T 2015 Comparison of composition and whey protein fractions of human, camel, donkey, goat and cow's milk. Mljekarstvo/ Dairy 65 159–167Google Scholar
Ereifej, KI, Alu'datt, MH, AlKhalidi, HA, Alli, I & Rababah, T 2011 Comparison and characterization of fat and protein composition of camel milk from eight Jordanian locations. Food Chemistry 127 282–289Google Scholar
Fiocchi, A, Brazek, J, Schunemann, H, Bahna, SL, von Berg, A, Beyer, K, Bozzola, M, Bradsher, J, Compalati, E, Ebisawa, M, Guzman, MA, Li, H, Heine, RG, Keith, P, Lack, G, Landi, M, Martelli, A, Rance, F, Sampson, H, Stein, A, Terracciano, L & Vieths, S (2010) World Allergy Organization (WAO) diagnosis and rationale for action against cow's milk allergy (DRACMA) guidelines. World Allergy Organ Journal 3 57–161Google Scholar
Givens, I, Aikman, P, Gibson, T & Brown, R 2013 Proportions of A1, A2, B and C β-casein protein variants in retail milk in the UK. Food Chemistry 139 549–552Google Scholar
Greer, FR, Sicherer, SH & Burks, AW 2008 Effects of early nutritional interventions on the development of atopic disease in infants and children: the role of maternal dietary restriction, breastfeeding, timing of introduction of complementary foods, and hydrolyzed formulas. Pediatrics 121 183–191Google Scholar
Katz, Y, Goldberg, MR, Zadik-Mnuhin, G, Leshno, M & Heyman, E 2008 Cross-sensitization between milk proteins: reactivity to a “kosher” epitope? Israel Medical Association Journal 10 85–88Google Scholar
Katz, Y, Rajuan, N, Goldberg, MR, Eisenberg, E, Heyman, E, Cohen, A & Leshno, M 2010 Early exposure to cow's milk protein is protective against IgE-mediated cow's milk protein allergy. Journal of Allergy & Clinical Immunology 126 77–82e1Google Scholar
Luyt, D, Bali, H, Makwana, N, Green, MR, Bravin, K, Nasser, SM & Clark, AT 2014 BSACI guideline for the diagnosis and management of cow's milk allergy. Clinical & Experimental Allergy 44 642–672Google Scholar
Onizawa, Y, Noguchi, E, Okada, M, Sumazaki, R & Hayashi, D 2016 The Association of the delayed introduction of cow's milk with IgE-mediated cow's milk allergies. Journal of Allergy & Clinical Immunology: In Practice 4(3) 481–488Google Scholar
Taylor, SL & Hefle, SL 2001 Food allergies and other food sensitivities. Food Technology 55 68–83Google Scholar
Truswell, AS 2005 The A2 milk case: a critical review. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 59 623–631Google Scholar
Virtanen, SM, Nevalainen, J, Kronberg-Kippila, C, Ahonen, S, Tapanainen, H, Uusitalo, L, Takkinen, HM, Niinisto, S.Overaskainen, ML, Kenward, MG, Veijola, R, Ilonen, J, Simell, O & Knip, M 2012 Food consumption and advanced B cell autoimmunity in young children with HLA-conferred susceptibility to type 1 diabetes: a nested case-control design. American Journal Clinical Nutrition 95 471–478Google Scholar
Walsh, J, Meyer, R, Shah, N, Quekett, J & Fox, AR 2016 Differentiating milk allergy (IgE and non-IgE mediated) from lactose intolerance. British Journal of General Practice 66 e609–e611Google Scholar
Wernery, U 2001 Camelid immunoglobulins and their importance for the new-born – a review. Journal of Veterinary Medicine B48 561–568Google Scholar
World Health Organization 2007 Global surveillance, prevention, and control of chronic respiratory diseases: a comprehensive approach. http://www.who.int/gard/publications/GARD%20Book%202007.pdfGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Vojdani et al. supplementary material

Vojdani et al. supplementary material 1

Download Vojdani et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 181.8 KB