LRA by ELISA/ACT tests: Lymphocyte response assays (LRA) are more sensitive, specific, predictive, and accurate for determining delayed allergy to foods and chemicals.
|Article Type:||Letter to the editor|
Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay
Food allergy (Prevention)
Food allergy (Research)
|Publication:||Name: Townsend Letter Publisher: The Townsend Letter Group Audience: General; Professional Format: Magazine/Journal Subject: Health Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2010 The Townsend Letter Group ISSN: 1940-5464|
|Issue:||Date: August-Sept, 2010 Source Issue: 325-326|
|Topic:||Event Code: 310 Science & research|
|Geographic:||Geographic Scope: United States Geographic Code: 1USA United States|
Food allergy is back in the news. About one in three people believe
that they have food allergy. Conventional skin tests and RAST blood
tests detect about 1 in 20 as type 1, or acute, allergy sufferers.
LRA by ELISA/ACT tests of delayed allergy or hidden allergy:
1. are increasingly recognized as the reference method of choice for accurate and comprehensive determination of food and chemical delayed allergies;
2. are functional, accurate, and reproducible, as shown below;
3. utilize a true ex vivo autologous cell culture that looks at the immune responses to immune memory carrying white blood cells just as they occur in the body;
4. provide the only assays for all 3 delayed hypersensitivity pathways in the first single step ELISA and the first ELISA done on the surface of a living cell. All other procedures are in vitro and subject to many more false positives and false negatives.
Why 'Cell Size' or Particle Size Is Not a Measure of Food Allergy or Any Allergy
A true cell culture identifies only lymphocytes by direct morphology and not by a particle-counting machine like a modified Coulter Counter. Cell size tests look at particles, usually 10 microns in size. These particles can be mistaken for lymphocytes in such tests that assume size tells all. Since red cell stacks (rouleaux) due to electrostatic changes, platelet clumps from early stages of blood clotting and debris from broken dendritic cells are often in the same 10 micron size, this means that particle counting is subject to many false positives. All other methodologies use a harsh lysing agent in attempt to rid the test sample of RBCs. Such hypertonic solutions leave much variable debris in the 10 micron size range after the lysing. In people with hypercoagulation syndromes, activation of blood clotting can occur to a variable degree.
A common misconception is that change in white blood cell morphology size/volume ratio assessed with a size analyzer is the same as a true LRA. With over 15,000,000 LRAs performed and over 50,000 cases in our database, our research confirms true LRAs as primary markers, while cell-size counting is at best a set of surrogate markers for electrochemical, coagulation, and apoptotic events.
Reproducibility and Clinical Predictive Significance of LRA Tests Results
Independent research through the Health Studies Collegium confirms that LRAs by this method show 97.6% reproducibility in blind split samples tests. Data are shown in the table below.
A recent research article published in the Natural Medicine journal showed just 34% reproducibility for particle size counting tests and 95% for conventional ELISA IgG antibody testing. (1) While ELISA IgG tests are reproducible, their meaning is unclear because both helpful and harmful antibodies cannot be distinguished in this static, nonfunctional procedure.
Reproducibility is important in all lab tests. To test reproducibility, LRA by ELISA/ACT tests were repeated a week apart under blind conditions. Of 95 items tested, 85 results were identical. The remaining 10 items had only slight variances in intensity of reaction, as shown in the next table.
LRA by ELISA/ACT tests are sensitive, specific, predictive, accurate, and reproducible as confirmed above and in the references. (2-7)
By contrast, other testing procedures over the course of a week have been shown to have lower accuracy. Reports are 2% reproducibility for particle counting and 82% reproducibility for conventional ELISA IgG tests. (1) Such methods are less accurate, reproducible or functional than LRA by ELISA/ACT. (1)
LRA tests distinguish helpful from harmful antibodies. Conventional ELISA and antibody tests are incapable of distinguishing helpful from harmful antibodies. This results in reproducible but nonfunctional and unpredictive results; that is, many false positives and some false negatives.
Practitioners are invited to include these proven tests and to observe the benefits of accurate food and chemical delayed allergy tests in their practice. This also allows reliable distinctions to be made between food intolerances and/or acute or delayed food allergies.
Russell Jaffe, MD, PhD, CCN, NACB FASCP, FACN, FACAAI, FALMI, FRSM Lab director, ELISA/ACT Biotechnologies, LLC
(1.) Hodsdon W, Zwickey H. NMJ original research: reproducibility and reliability of two food allergy testing methods. Na Med J. March 2010 2(3):8--13.
(2.) Jaffe R. Immune defense and repair systems: clinical approaches to immune function testing and enhancement. Townsend Lett. 1989;79/80:88--92 [part 1];81/82:38-44 [part 2];83/84:59-64 [part 3].
(3.) Jaffe R. Clinical and laboratory suggestions for chronic fatigue syndrome. Int Clin Nut Rev. 1991;11:85-91.
(4.) Deuster PA, Jaffe R. A novel treatment for fibromyalgia improves clinical outcomes in a community-based study. / Musculo Pain. 1998;6:133-149.
(5.) Jaffe R. Autoimmunity: clinical relevance of biological response modifiers in diagnosis, treatment, and testing, part I. Intl J Integrative Med. 2000;2(2):16-22.
(6.) Jaffe R. Autoimmunity: clinical relevance of biological response modifiers in diagnosis, treatment, and cofactor replacement, part II. Intl J. Integr Med. 2000;2(4): 58-65.
(7.) Jaffe R, Brown S. acid-alkaline balance and its effect on bone health. Intl J. Integr Med. 2000; 2 (6): 7-18.
(8.) Jaffe R. First line comprehensive care. Part I: chronic autoimmune disease management by causes rather than symptomatic consequences. Semin Integr Med. 2005 (Jun);3(2):44-60.
(9.) Jaffe R. First line comprehensive care. Part II: anthropogenic xenobiotics in functional medicine. managing persisting bioaccumulating pollutants: toxic minerals, biocides, hormone mimics, solvents, and chemical disruptors. Semin Integr Med. 2005 (Sep) 3; (3):79-92.
(10.) Jaffe R. Functional lab tests to evaluate immune competencies in chronic illness and chronic infection: part 1. Townsend Lett. Jan 2006:87-89.
(11.) Jaffe R. Functional lab tests to evaluate immune competencies in chronic illness and chronic infection: part 2. Townsend Lett. Feb/Mar 2006:107-109.
(12.) Jaffe R, Mani J, DeVane J, Mani H. Tolerance loss in diabetics: Association with foreign antigen exposure. Diabet Med. 2006 Aug;23(8):924-925.
(13.) Jaffe R. First-Line comprehensive care III update on immune system lab tests for fibromyalgia-chronic fatigue-metabolic syndrome: continuum of treatment-resistant pain and fatigue: optimum clinical management improves outcomes and reduces risks and treatment complications as supported by new data. Townsend Lett. 2008;Jan:87-94.
(14.) Jaffe R. Functional lab tests to evaluate immune competencies in chronic illness and chronic infection: part 3. Townsend Lett. 2009 Jan:80-90.
(15.) Jaffe R. Food reactivities: diagnosing and treating food allergies, intolerances, and celiac disease. In: i,e Food and Nutrients in Disease Management. CRC Press; 2009:241-255.
(16.) Brostoff J, Challacombe SJ, eds. Food Allergy and Intolerance. Saunders Ltd.; 2002.
(17.) Roitt I, Brostoff J, Male D. Immunology. 6th ed. Mosby; 2002.
Split Sample * Lymphocyte response assay LRA by reproducibility tests ELISA/ACT (# of foods out of 236 tested) Identical Results 97.6% (235) 1 reactive class difference 2.4% (1) 2 reactivity difference 0% 3 reactivity difference 0% * LRA by ELISA/ACT tests are samples from same person, read "blind" in triplicate showing reproducibility.
Comparison of blind Lymphocyte response assay functional samples taken one week tests! LRA by ELISA/ACT (# of foods apart out of 95 tested) Identical results 89.3% (85 items) 1 reactivity level difference 10.7% (10 items) 2 reactivity level difference No differences! 3 reactivity level difference No differences!
|Gale Copyright:||Copyright 2010 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.|