Preventive effects of royal jelly against anaphylactic response in a murine model of cow’s milk allergy

Figures & data

Figure 1. Clinical signs observed in mice following challenge test with the allergen (β-Lg). Data are mean ± SE (standard error). (###p < 0.001 compared with unsensitized mice (CL−). ***p < 0.001 compared with positive control mice (CL+); n = 10 per group).

Figure 2. Body temperature of Balb/c mice after β-Lg challenge. Rectal temperatures were measured 30 minutes after IP challenge with β-Lg. Data are mean ± SE (standard error). (###p < 0.001 compared with unsensitized mice (CL−). ***p < 0.001 compared with positive control mice (CL+); n = 10 per group).

Figure 3. Histamine concentration was determined by enzyme immunoassay kit and represented as plasma concentration (nM). Data are mean ± SE (standard error). (###p < 0.001 compared with unsensitized mice (CL−). **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001 compared with positive control mice (CL+); n = 10 per group).

Figure 4. Effect of royal jelly administration on IgG (a) and IgE (b) titers in response to β-Lg sensitization. Data are mean ± SE (standard error). (###p < 0.001 compared with unsensitized mice (CL−). **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001 compared with positive control mice (CL+); n = 10 per group).

Figure 5. Effect of β-Lg on the short circuit current (Isc) in Ussing chamber measured in mouse jejunal fragments sensitized intraperitoneally with β-Lg previously treated or not with royal jelly. Data are expressed as mean ± SE (n = 10) (**p < 0.01 and ***p < 0.001).

Figure 6. Effect of β-Lg on conductance (G) in Ussing chamber measured in mouse jejunal fragments sensitized intraperitoneally with β-Lg previously treated or not with royal jelly. Data are expressed as mean ± SE (n = 10) (**p < 0.01 and ***p < 0.001).

Table 1. Effect of royal jelly on Isc (a) and conductance (b) values after β-Lg challenge.

	Isc (µA cm^−2)
	T0	TMAX	ΔIsc
(a)
Negative control	34.80 ± 3.61	37.16 ± 3.68	2.35 ± 0.56
Positive control	38.17 ± 3.21	54.78 ± 3.55	16.60 ± 1.13***
RJ 0. 5 g/kg	48.03 ± 4.73	53.00 ± 4.73	4.97 ± 1.05###
RJ 1 g/kg	43.75 ± 6.59	48. 59 ± 6.09	4.86 ± 2.19###
RJ 1.5 g/kg	56.16 ± 7.23	60.78 ± 5.45	4.61 ± 2.47###
	G (mmho/cm^2)
	T0	TMAX	ΔG
(b)
Negative control	21.54 ± 1.98	22.73 ± 1.95	1.18 ± 0.21
Positive control	26.79 ± 1.97	43.20 ± 5.56	16.41 ± 3.83***
RJ 0.5 g/kg	18.83 ± 1.94	20.50 ± 2.18	1.67 ± 0.71###
RJ 1 g/kg	22.83 ± 5. 67	24.33 ± 6.28	1.50 ± 0.67###
RJ 1.5 g/kg	18.70 ± 1.24	20.98 ± 1.26	2.27 ± 0.68###

The increase in Isc (ΔIsc) and G (ΔG) is the difference between the peak value after β-Lg challenge and the baseline value.

Values represent mean ± SE (standard error); n = 10 mice per group.

*** p < 0.001 compared with negative control (CL−).

### p < 0.001 compared with positive control (CL−).

Figure 7. Light microscopy (G × 10) showing intestinal villi stained with haematoxylin–eosin. Jejunal tissues were obtained from naive mice (CL−) (a), β-Lg-sensitized mice (CL+) (b) and mice received royal jelly for seven days at the respective doses of 0.5 (c), 1 (d) and 1.5 g/kg (e) and then sensitized intraperitoneally with β-Lg.

Figure 8. Evaluation of the villus height fragments of jejunum of mice received royal jelly for seven days at the respective doses of 0 (positive control), 0.5, 1 and 1.5 g/kg and then sensitized intraperitoneally with β-Lg. Data are mean ± SE (standard error). (###p < 0.001 compared with unsensitized mice (CL−). **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001 compared with positive control mice (CL+); n = 10 per group).