Key to gluten intolerance found - aussie research

This forum contains current news items that may be of interest to us.

Moderators: Rosie, Jean, CAMary, moremuscle, JFR, Dee, xet, Peggy, Matthew, Gabes-Apg, grannyh, Gloria, Mars, starfire, Polly, Joefnh

Post Reply
User avatar
Gabes-Apg
Emperor Penguin
Emperor Penguin
Posts: 8332
Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2009 3:12 pm
Location: Hunter Valley NSW Australia

Key to gluten intolerance found - aussie research

Post by Gabes-Apg »

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010 ... 960937.htm

By comparing the type of T-cells found in the patients' blood with a "library" of 16,000 gluten fragments, he and colleagues were able to work out which fragments triggered the biggest immune response.

To their surprise, the researchers found that the peptide known to be toxic in wheat gluten was not a problem in the patients fed barley and rye.

Instead, the researchers found each of the three grains had their own toxic peptide that triggered an immune response.

They also found one peptide, dubbed the "universal toxic peptide", was a problem no matter what grain was eaten.

"Three out of four critical peptides for coeliac disease are now revealed in this study," says Professor Anderson.

I think us MC'ers know about toxic peptides!!!!

BBC in the uk running the story had this statement to make
Coeliac disease can be managed with a gluten-free diet but this is often a challenge for patients. Nearly half still have damage to their intestines five years after starting a gluten-free diet.

I am interested on what basis this statement is based on given polly's recent achievement 5 years of diet management and MC free
Gabes Ryan

"Anything that contradicts experience and logic should be abandoned"
Dalai Lama
Rosie
Rockhopper Penguin
Rockhopper Penguin
Posts: 738
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 5:38 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ

Post by Rosie »

I am interested on what basis this statement is based on given polly's recent achievement 5 years of diet management and MC free
Gabes, I wonder if it's because in order to be diagnosed with CD you have to have visible villous atrophy, which means the disease has progressed a long way and damage is quite extensive. It may be that that amount of damage takes more than 5 years to heal.......

The finding that each of the grains had their own unique immunogenic peptide is interesting. I wonder if any studies have been done on the 3 dimensional structure of those different peptides. It may be that even though the peptide sequences were different, the structures were very similar and that's why they react.

It's almost a universal truth that the more that is found out the more complicated things become......... That report is very interesting......thanks for posting it.

Rosie
Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is always to try just one more time………Thomas Edison
User avatar
Gabes-Apg
Emperor Penguin
Emperor Penguin
Posts: 8332
Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2009 3:12 pm
Location: Hunter Valley NSW Australia

Post by Gabes-Apg »

Rosie
I wonder if it's because in order to be diagnosed with CD you have to have visible villous atrophy, which means the disease has progressed a long way and damage is quite extensive. It may be that that amount of damage takes more than 5 years to heal.....
Agreed, i am pretty sure i have seen a discussion somewhere on the PP pages that to test positive to CD you have to have quite extensive damage.

like most things there is no quick easy answer (or cure) what i see as a benefit is this type of research is a_ they got it published even though a drug company was not releasing a new product (yet)
b) they are doing research that may explain non CD related gluten issues (ie MC and IBS)
Gabes Ryan

"Anything that contradicts experience and logic should be abandoned"
Dalai Lama
User avatar
tex
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 35070
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 9:00 am
Location: Central Texas

Post by tex »

Gabes,

You are trying to compare apples to oranges. The celiac histopathology refers to normalization of the villi in the small intestine, whereas Polly's histology normalization involved the epithelia of her colon. Her doctor never checked for small intestinal damage.

The statement from the article that you questioned, is based on research such as the project described in this article, published in 2007:
Biopsy samples from 249 coeliac patients (F 165, M 84) were analysed basally and after clinical and biochemical remission following a GFD. All patients showed an improvement in mucosal findings after starting a GFD, but complete histological normalization was observed in 74.1% of paediatric cases (diagnosed before 14 years of age) and in only 17.5% of adults. Statistical analysis showed that sex, the clinical picture at diagnosis and the length of time between biopsy at the time of diagnosis and on a GFD were not related to histological normalization.
The red emphasis is mine, of course. That quote comes from this article:

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/b ... 4/art00008

Kids heal quickly, adults don't. The reason that most of them never completely heal, though, is because they either cheat on their diet, occasionally, or they are simply not careful enough with it, and they regularly ingest sub-clinical amounts of gluten, (traces of gluten, in amounts below their threshold to trigger a reaction). IOW, they are not totally gluten-free, but they are not getting enough to cause enough villus damage to trigger clinical symptoms, so they mistakenly think that they are doing just fine.

Tex
:cowboy:

It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
User avatar
tex
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 35070
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 9:00 am
Location: Central Texas

Post by tex »

Regarding the article you cited, that is definitely good progress at defining the problem, but I believe that this statement is a bit misleading:
"Three out of four critical peptides for coeliac disease are now revealed in this study," says Professor Anderson.
I think that he means that 3 out of 4 known critical peptides were revealed in their study. He can't say that there are only 4 problematic peptides in total, because there are many more that have not yet been identified. The article even mentions that fact - they only isolated 3 of the worst offenders.
By comparing the type of T-cells found in the patients' blood with a "library" of 16,000 gluten fragments, he and colleagues were able to work out which fragments triggered the biggest immune response.
The red emphasis is mine, of course. The comments about desensitizing celiacs to the peptides that they identified, are a bit premature, also, because we already know that when you desensitize someone's immune system to the primary problem, the immune system will immediately detect the next most significant allergen, and launch an attack against it. That implies that all significant problematic peptides will have to be identified, and desensitization techniques will have to be developed for all of them, in order for desensitization to be a practical treatment for gluten sensitivity. That development is probably a long, long way in the future.

Yes, this is good progress, but it is only another baby step in the process of developing a "cure" for celiac disease.

The first major peptide, (dominant alpha-gliadin T-cell epitope), was discovered over 10 years ago, so in 10 years, only another 3 have been identified - that's not exactly rip-roaring progress. :sad:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10700238

Tex
:cowboy:

It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
Post Reply

Return to “News Releases of Interest”