Posts Tagged ‘Immune system’

Overprotection of babies may increase the risk for allergies

June 7, 2014

It is often said that one in 3 in developed countries suffer from some of allergy. By the time they are 3 years old half the children in the US suffer from wheezing or asthma. It is often claimed that this is because of the various chemical compounds that modern humans have put into the atmosphere. But I am not so sure that this is the sole cause or even a significant cause. It could be that we are seeing the downside of having an obsession about dirt and being obsessively “antiseptic”  with our children.

Our immune systems need to be triggered and challenged if they are to develop. That is well enough known and is the basic fact exploited by the advances in vaccination science. But the corollary is that when we are overprotective with babies – and especially in the first year of life – a lack of exposure to these triggers prevents the immune system from developing some basic resistances and this may lead to the greater incidence of allergies later on.

It could well be that it is the obsessive cleanliness around our infants which is itself the cause of an underdeveloped immune system and the greater prevalence of allergies.

A new paper finds that some exposure to “dirt” early in life is probably a very good thing.

Susan V. Lynch et al,  Effects of early-life exposure to allergens and bacteria on recurrent wheeze and atopy in urban childrenJournal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 2014; DOI:10.1016/j.jaci.2014.04.018

Abstract: 

Wheezing illnesses cause major morbidity in infants and are frequent precursors to asthma. We sought to examine environmental factors associated with recurrent wheezing in inner-city environments. …….. 

Cumulative allergen exposure over the first 3 years was associated with allergic sensitization, and sensitization at age 3 years was related to recurrent wheeze. In contrast, first-year exposure to cockroach, mouse, and cat allergens was negatively associated with recurrent wheeze (odds ratio, 0.60, 0.65, and 0.75, respectively; P ≤ .01). Differences in house dust bacterial content in the first year, especially reduced exposure to specific Firmicutes and Bacteriodetes, was associated with atopy and atopic wheeze. Exposure to high levels of both allergens and this subset of bacteria in the first year of life was most common among children without atopy or wheeze.

In inner-city environments children with the highest exposure to specific allergens and bacteria during their first year were least likely to have recurrent wheeze and allergic sensitization. These findings suggest that concomitant exposure to high levels of certain allergens and bacteria in early life might be beneficial and suggest new preventive strategies for wheezing and allergic diseases.

From the John Hopkins Press Release :

Infants who grew up in homes with mouse and cat dander and cockroach droppings in the first year of life had lower rates of wheezing at age 3, compared with children not exposed to these allergens soon after birth. The protective effect, moreover, was additive, the researchers found, with infants exposed to all three allergens having lower risk than those exposed to one, two or none of the allergens. Specifically, wheezing was three times as common among children who grew up without exposure to such allergens (51 percent), compared with children who spent their first year of life in houses where all three allergens were present (17 percent).

In addition, infants in homes with a greater variety of bacteria were less likely to develop environmental allergies and wheezing at age 3.
 
When researchers studied the effects of cumulative exposure to both bacteria and mouse, cockroach and cat allergens, they noticed another striking difference. Children free of wheezing and allergies at age 3 had grown up with the highest levels of household allergens and were the most likely to live in houses with the richest array of bacterial species. Some 41 percent of allergy-free and wheeze-free children had grown up in such allergen and bacteria-rich homes. By contrast, only 8 percent of children who suffered from both allergy and wheezing had been exposed to these substances in their first year of life.

Not all dirt is bad.

Almonds help fight viruses – but don’t peel them!

November 2, 2010
Shelled (right) and unshelled (left) almonds

Shelled and unsheld almonds: Image via Wikipedia

I love almonds anyway but I note that this research is funded by the Almond Board of California. I cannot help wondering what negative effects of eating almonds have been observed but will never be reported.

The Telegraph:

Researchers found almond skins improved the ability of the white blood cells to detect viruses while also increasing the body’s ability to prevent viruses from replicating and so spreading inside the body. They discovered that even after the almonds had been digested in the gut, there was still an increase in the immune system’s defence against viruses.

The scientists, who are based at the Institute of Food Research in Norwich and the Policlinico Universitario in Messina, Italy, said their findings suggest that the nuts can increase the immune system’s ability to fight off a wide range of viruses, including those that cause flu and the common cold.

Dr Giuseppina Mandalari, from the Institute of Food Research, said: “Almond skins are able to stimulate the immune response and thus contribute to an antiviral immune defence.”

The researchers, whose work is published in the scientific journal Immunology Letters and was funded by the Almond Board of California, found that even after digestion in a laboratory simulation of a human gut, the almonds skins were still able to increase the immune response.

They tested the immune response to infection by the Herpes Simplex Virus 2, which can cause cold sores and is a notoriously difficult virus to treat due to its ability to evade the immune system by dampening down the body’s inflammatory response.

They found that almond skin extracts were effective against even this virus.

But they found that almond skins that had been removed through blanching in boiling water, which is common process to remove skins from almonds, had little effect on the immune system.

The researchers say they are still to identify exactly what it is in almond skins that cause the antiviral activity, but they believe it could be due to compounds known as polyphenols.

It is thought they increase the sensitivity of white blood cells known as helper T cells, which are involved in fighting off viruses. They said it was likely that other nuts may also have this sort of activity.

Dr Martin Wickham, who was also involved in the study at the Institute of Food Research, said: “It is an area of huge interest to find natural alternatives that will have an antiviral activity. Nutritional guidelines recommend eating around three ounces a day to benefit from the fibre and other nutritional components in almonds, but we have still to do the work to see whether this would be enough to have an antiviral affect. This was just an initial study to find out if almond skins have this antiviral activity. The herpes simplex virus is a very good model of viral infection because it is known to evade the immune system, so because the almonds had an impact on this virus, it is fair to assume that it will have an impact on other viruses.”