Talk:Food allergy/Archive 1

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

useful refs

There are some useful refs we can use here: http://www.aaaai.org/professionals/resources/pdf/food_allergy_2006.pdf

Asbruckman 02:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

breast feeding

dissussion of reduced breast feeding related to increase in allergies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.65.48.66 (talk • contribs)

It would be good to add that! Asbruckman 02:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


This is my thought exactly. Breastfed infants can experience reactions to foods in the mother's diet. This, too, is often misdiagnosed as colic.

Also, creating a sub-section for infant feeding might be useful. It is unclear which information contained in the "in children" section applies to children and which applies to babies. -26 apr 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.188.221 (talk) 04:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

accurate diagnosis

Worthy of inclusion?: "double blind tests in an English town showed that only 5 per cent of those claiming to have food allergies had made an accurate diagnosis." -- London Review of Books, 22 June 2006. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.56.214 (talk • contribs)

  • Have you got a reference (issue, date, page number, etc...)? --apers0n 15:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It's Vol. 28 No. 12 dated 22 June 2006. I don't have a page number, I'm afraid. You can see the article at [1], but not in full unless you're a subscriber. (I have a user account now.) Omicron18 11:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


External links

Requesting this additional link to the "External Links" on this page, please advise: Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America www.aafa.org - nonprofit patient organization for people with food allergies. Aboutsellular 19:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


Folks, the site kidswithfoodallergies.org is an extraordinary site. It is a non profit. The organizers are just trying to make enough money to cover their substantial costs in hosting it (they're using a professional web hosting company to run it). I have two kids with food allergies and honestly don't know how I would've gotten through without this site. The world will be a better place if more people know about it. I don't know of any other place where you can get such solid, medically correct advice and also emotional support. It's really hard sending your kid to school every day thinking, "I wonder if someone will accidentally give him/her something that might cause a potentially fatal anyphlactic reaction? Will the teacher know what to do if this happens?" Where else can you go to really talk about this with others in the same boat who are clueful? If it's OK with everyone, I am going to put the link back, again. Would you kindly please not remove it? Thanks. Asbruckman 15:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Well the Wikipedia point of view is that the world will be a better place if our articles become the best possible resource on encyclopedic subjects-- please feel free to help make this one fit that description (I realise that you have done some work on it). And the External links policy has exceptions for a lot of things, but not for forums-- that's just not what we're here for: we're an encyclopedia, not a link directory or a social support network. -- Mwanner | Talk 15:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

This is clearly a borderline case. I understand where you're coming from, and I just don't agree. And the result is that you're preventing real people from getting important, useful info. I will not put the link back again myself but I ask some one else to please do so. kidswithfoodallergies.org Asbruckman 21:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Requesting an additional link to the "External Links" on this page, please advise. Kids With Food Allergies www.kidswithfoodallergies.org - nonprofit organization for information and support for families raising children with food allergies.lmitchell888 14:14 26 January 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 21:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The link to National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (July 2004). NIH Publication No. 04-5518: Food Allergy: An Overview (PDF) http://www.niaid.nih.gov/publications/pdf/foodallergy.pdf was not found (404) when I tried it moments ago. 149.199.62.254 (talk) 23:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)User:JohnDCorbett

Recations?

Is it possible to react with immediate vomiting to an allergen with having any more serious reactions like anaphylaxis? - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 11:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a ref on this, but I know the answer is yes from experience.  :) Asbruckman 02:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Statistics

The intro says: 2% of adults have them and the statistics section says 3% to 4% of adults. --apers0n 07:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge sub-pages?

The following pages are all very short and most are similar in content - it could be preferable to merge them into this article: Milk allergy, Egg allergy, Peanut allergy, Nut Allergy (page capitalisation wrong), Seafood Allergy (page capitalisation wrong), Soy allergy, Wheat allergy. If the pages are kept they should be harmonised with this article. --apers0n 13:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a lot you could do with individual pages, but I don't have a good enough sense for the scope of Wikipedia to know if expanding them is a good idea. For example, you could give a thorough documentation of what foods fall into a given category of allergen and what foods have that allergen in them, what chemicals in them are the actual allergens, hard data on the incidence of it in the general population, advice on avoiding the allergen, and so forth. I don't think there is any equivalent of that on the web right now beyond the top few allergens, and I wish it were somewhere, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia should be the place for it.Tfkw 03:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The Big Eight

While I agree that The Big Eight need to be mentioned, I'm concerned as to whether that section is too focused on the US. Furthermore, the lead also mentions America exclusively, which makes me question the rest of the article's completeness. There needs to be more info on what food allergies are like worldwide. I notice that The Big Eight are repeated in the statistics section and that they are said to account for 90% of food allergies. Perhaps these two sections could be merged to incorporate a less biased perspective?--Supernumerary 08:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Food list external link

I removed the external link added by 213.84.214.154 which was a food allergy list in PDF form hosted by a free file sharing site. This violates WP:EL:

Links normally to be avoided: Any site that misleads the reader by use of ... unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the [term] ... "unverifiable research".

∴ Therefore | talk 19:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Oral allergy syndrome

A possible merger with this article is being discussed at Oral allergy syndrome's talk page. If you're interested, please feel free to express your opinions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

introduction text

"It is estimated that up to 1 American have food allergies of one type,[1] and the prevalence is apparently rising.[2] " 1? Out of what? Or only oone adult in the whole of US? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.121.131.4 (talk) 06:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Review

Office-based management of food allergies: doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2007.07.036 JFW | T@lk 07:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Elimination diet

Help writing Elimination diet would be appreciated. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Elimination diet for some discussion and links. --Una Smith (talk) 05:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Dubious

I added the dubious tag to the suggestion GM food was causing an increase in allergies of men over 30 as not only was it uncited, it seems highly unlikely. I'm not aware of any sudden recent rise in allergies. Allergies have been rising in most of the developed world for a while but GM foods only entered the food chain in ~1993. Nil Einne (talk) 06:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


I agree. I have never heard any evidence of this and it seems highly ridiculous--just more fear-mongering about GM foods (which as far as I know have never been implicated in any human health problem).

I agree as well. I took it out. Asbruckman (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

FUD / IgG

There's a bunch of Fear Uncertainty and Doubt statements regarding IgG and food allergies. I'm sure we can do better.

i took a blood test that helped me identify something that was making me sick, via IgG reactions. i quit eating it, and i got better. it was clear as day (and i continued improving over a period of months). IgG reactions can be really nonobvious. so, i support IgG blood testing and the use of those results in determining one's appropriate diet. i don't know when i'll have necessary references in hand, but i want to encourage others, for whom allergies might be a factor, to go find out as much as you can. it can make a big difference in your life. meanwhile, i hope someone else can improve the article's treatment of IgG, if i am delayed.

- Rgrant (talk) 10:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Citations

I've fixed up the format of citations, but the sources themselves still need vast improvement. Most of them do not meet WP:MEDRS by a long shot.LeadSongDog (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

corn Allergies

this articcle mentions corn derivitves making corn allergies hard to diagnose... what I am assmuing this is saying is that someone gets an allergic reaction to the corn derivative and isnt able to identify the corn and doesnt realise it a reaction to corn. However my grandmother is allergic to corn and consumes a lot with corn dirivatives to no reaction so its clearly more complex than that. --71.131.27.5 (talk) 06:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

What the heck is that box in the intro?

No title, no caption, no explanation whatsoever! Label it, format it, and move it to the side, OR get rid of it. 216.165.95.70 (talk) 22:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Can microflora fit this category.....???

--222.64.22.16 (talk) 09:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

--222.64.22.16 (talk) 09:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

--222.64.22.16 (talk) 09:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

--222.64.22.16 (talk) 09:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

--222.64.22.16 (talk) 09:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

--222.64.22.16 (talk) 09:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

--222.64.22.16 (talk) 09:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

--222.64.22.16 (talk) 09:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

--222.64.22.16 (talk) 09:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The topic of sulfa allergy is created based on the following....

--222.67.205.141 (talk) 04:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Info about meat allergy....

--124.78.211.203 (talk) 09:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

--124.78.211.203 (talk) 09:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

--124.78.211.203 (talk) 09:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

--124.78.211.203 (talk) 09:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

--124.78.211.203 (talk) 09:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Water allergy.....

--124.78.211.203 (talk) 09:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Protein allergy page

For context: The talk in this section originates from a predecessor article called Protein Allergy. After this section, the talk relates to the original Food Allergy article or the merged article.

initial comments

A very start! You might take a look at this article, Enzyme, for a "good" (excellent) example.Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Peer Review

This article is really great! It is very in depth and informative. Great job at keeping it strictly factual. There are a few spelling errors and grammatical issues but I have fixed a few. As far as I can see, this is a great article. Although I am not well versed on this subject, your explanations seem to be satisfactory and are broken down into clear, simple explanations. Great Job!

Wexlax20 (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


Hi this is Sara from class! I just wanted to say thank you for reviewing my article (Kaitlin) and for all the comments you left me. I was wondering what sections you think I should condense and what the title of the newly synthesized section should be. Now back to your article... it's great! I thought it was very interesting and very well written. The photos you included were really good and the text boxes provided the information in a clear and easy to understand way. The only thing I think you could touch on is in the acute and late phase response sections. I don't know if this is the case, but if there are symptoms involved with these (such as acute phase = this is when you begin to see hives, etc) that would be helpful to include. The acute phase has so much information it is slightly hard to understand. I have the same issue with my article as well but I think if you can say that is when such and such occurs that will clear it up a bit! All in all, you have a great article and it is clear that you worked very hard on it! Saralo16(talk) 23:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


Wow, this is a very informational article! I did not know anything about what a protein allergy was, but now I definitely have a better understanding! I think the charts and diagrams are very helpful. You may want to try to move the large chart with the different vitamins out of the footnote section, but I think thte chart is very easy to understand, even to someone who does not know about protein allergies. There are a couple of punctuation errors, with commas particularly, but none that greatly affect how the article is read. Great job girls! This is a great article!Donovank (talk) 01:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

This article is quite informative. I liked all of your pictures and charts. They helped a lot with understanding the information. One thing I wanted to mention was the fluidity of the pictures and graphs. The graph at the end of the article would be better if it did not flow into the bottom sections on references and what not. I am not sure if it is a picture or not, but if it is what can be done to keep that graph in the section is to make your own graph with wikipedia. I know there is some sort of option available for that because I did it in my article on the freshman fifteen. Check it out if you need to see how it is done. Other than that, great work.Benro129 (talk) 03:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Peer Review

I also read your article and think you guys have done a great job. I know a bit about proteins and how they work, but certain areas may need some more information so an average reader can follow easier. Your table is great and so are your pictures. Other than a few missing commas I did not see many errors. I was trying to find stuff you could add if you needed to make it longer : I thought maybe how these allergies affect muscle growth and recovery. I was looking at it as an athlete who might have a problem getting enough protein because of allergies.

Keep up the good work. I look forward to seeing the finished article.DukeSoccer11 (talk) 18:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

(By Tyler Ruby)

I didn't want to change around and mess with your article so I thought that I would just post this and you could decide what you wanted to change. I read your article and I thought that it was very good. There is a lot of good information. It seems like you approached it from all angles and covered mostly everything that has to do with protein allergies. After reading it I did find a couple of spelling errors and one or two things that you might want to add. I'll just put the section title below and the spelling errors that I saw or what I thought you could add if you want.

Protein Structure- I thought that maybe you could say where in the cell the protein is made and what actually makes the protein (Ribosomes).

Protein Folding- I saw in the fouth line of the first paragraph it says "need", but I think it should be "needed". Also in the fourth line of the second paragraph you said "In contrast to hydrophilic side chains there are those of the nonpolar category which are considered to be hydrophilic side chains or water hating". I think it should be hydrophobic instead of hydrophilic. Hydrophobic means water hating whereas hydrophilic means water loving. Then in the rest of that paragraph you should change hydrophilic to hydrophobic. In the third paragraph-second line, you have "fold into is desired three-dimensional shape". I think it should be "its" instead of "is"

This is everything that I saw that you might want to consider. Overall though I thought the article was really good and you guys should be really happy with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by165.190.89.146 (talk) 02:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all the corrections and help! Clarker1 (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Peer review

Per the request of User:Clarker1, I'm going to begin a peer-review process. As a bit of a heads up, any changes which have to do with Wikipedia's manual of style will just be made (with proper edit summaries, to ensure users are aware of what the changes are). Edits related to content will also be made, but suggestions about improvements will be given here, on the talk page, so that a consensus may be reached. The first order of business, however, is moving the page; Wikipedia naming conventions state that articles should only have the first letter capitalized (except in cases of proper nouns), and so I'll be moving the page to Protein allergy. Jhfortier (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Further review of this article has demonstrated a number of issues. Wikipedia has specific articles discussing proteins in depth (such as the article Proteins) and so going into great detail on proteins, their functions, and examples of their actions is not necessary in this article. It adds length and complexity when a simple link would suffice. My recommendation is to condense or remove the sections on protein structure, protein folding, how proteins work, and protein control. The focus of an article on allergies out to be the actual allergies. A quick paragraph about proteins with prodigious use of links would be sufficient.
Areas that might be considered for expansion include discussing how exactly a protein allergy occurs (i.e. protein recognition and response by immune cells). This would be a great first or second section, to establish quite early-on how the allergy occurs. More information and examples of this could be found on the page allergy, which also has some really great tables and images that might be useful for this page.
Additionally, there is an excess of detail in certain parts of the article. For example, when discussing the use of epinephrine as a treatment for allergies, a simple link to the article would eliminate the need for an in-depth explanation of the fight-or-flight response. I understand that this article was originally prepared as a school assignment, and in that case the explanation might have been necessary. As a stand-alone article, though, this page could make exceptional use of links to avoid lengthy explanation; if people don't know about epinephrine and wish to know more, they could always click on the link.
On a positive note, the inline citations are fantastic. Very few articles at this stage of development have such consistently good references, so well done on that. The information about common allergies is also really excellent, and really relevant to people's interest if they go looking for information on allergies.
If you would like any assistance in these edits, please don't hesitate to let me know. I'd be more than happy to help you improve this article, and with a little work I'm sure it could attainGood Article status. One of the most difficult things about writing your first article is finding the correct balance of explanation and linking. You want to explain things well enough for a technical article to be readable, but you don't want an excess of irrelevant detail. Please let me know if I can be of any help at all!!! Jhfortier (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help!!Clarker1 (talk) 12:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your review, it was very helpful. I was hoping to keep the sections about protein function, folding, etc. Would you suggest just linking our article to the allergy article? Or would you insert a paragraph about what the allergy article addresses? hersh016 (hersh016) —Precedingundated comment added 18:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC).

Hello to you both. As stated above in the peer review, those sections simply weren't relevant to the article, and were making it unnecessarily long. The best example I can think of is as follows: if you were writing an article about the book Alice in Wonderland, you wouldn't have extensive information on the feeding habits, breeding habits, and life cycle of rabbits. Although there IS a rabbit in Alice in Wonderland, people don't need to know all that much about rabbits to increase their understanding of Alice in Wonderland. In the same way, writing about the role of proteins as enzymatic catalysts, motor proteins etc etc. is just not important when you're reading about protein allergies. Does that make sense? The other concrete example I can give is found (amusingly enough) in the article Sesame Street. There are many international versions of the show Sesame Street, and those have their own separate article under International co-productions of Sesame Street; the parts which are directly relevant to the American version of Sesame street are discussed very briefly in the relevant sub-section with just enough detail for the reader to understand how these co-productions came about.
That's what I mean when I talk about the balance between explaining and linking. With respect to this article in particular, for example, if you wanted to discuss protein structure, perhaps discuss how different protein structures interact with factors of the host immune system (hydrogen bonding? structural specialization?) to cause the allergy. There should be just enough background information to allow the reader to understand the context of the article, without going into unnecessary detail.
Another thing you might consider (which I neglected to mention in the peer review) is finding places where you could insert links to your article. You'll notice that at the bottom of many articles, there is a section called "See Also". In articles such as peanut or allergy you might consider inserting a link to your article in the See Also section, or else somewhere appropriate in the body of an article. This is the best way to get more readers to find this article and, in turn, more editors with different types of expertise contributing to it. The best articles on Wikipedia have lots of different contributors from many different perspectives contributing to make sure they're neutral, unbiased, and well-written.
I look forward to working with both (or all?) of you on this article, and hopefully we can get it up to GA standard in the next few weeks or months. Thank you! Jhfortier (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Peer Review

Although I do not know much about protein or how it works, this article is very informative to readers with in-depth explanations and easy to understand terminology. Some of the most interesting sections for me were about the symptoms, very helpful and much more than the average person would know. I also think the chart of common protein allergies was helpful to illustrate the types of food that cause these allergies and the chart of alternative sources was a great touch!! The work you have done is very good. Keep progressing! Chelcal (talk) 14:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of irrelevant sections/GA review

Per my recommendations of the peer review, I've decided to be bold and remove all of the irrelevant sections. I also added a section describing the pathophysiology of allergic response, which was taken from the article Allergy. These sections were great, but were not relevant to this article at all, and needed to be removed.

If this article is going to avoid being merged into the general Allergy article, it needs some strong sections to distinguish the notability of protein allergies particularly. As for the GA nomination, I get the feeling this article will be quick-failed; it's simply not ready yet.Jhfortier (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

They should have some more time to work on it before you decide to quick fail. The students are committed to getting it into shape. I left a note on your talk page as well. I hope you'll give them a chance, with some direction. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
This article does not meet any of the quick fail criteria.NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs/Vote! 20:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Quick fail criteria You are right. It doesn't. I'd like to see some collaboration here, ladies, with Jhfortier and others to get this passed. Jh, it seems to me that some of the material on protein construction and folding should actually be in there, called the underlying causes of protein allergies. Obviously some people are allergic and some are not, and it's the genetic thing, how the proteins go together, that makes the allergy. Perhaps not as much as was in there previously, but a bit on how the proteins do not form properly would be appropriate. The article shouldn't be just about the allergy and its symptoms, but its underlying causes. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Auntieruth55, I agree with you in the sense that there is information that this article still needs. Structural information related to the interaction between proteins and IgE cells is the type of structural info that would benefit this article. I've grabbed the following section from the page Food allergy, which I think has a good level of detail:
... the immune system produces IgE antibodies against protein epitopes on non-pathogenic substances, including dietary components... The IgE molecules are coated onto mast cells, which inhabit the mucosal lining of the digestive tract. Upon ingesting an allergen, the IgE reacts with mast cells and tissue-bound basophils to release a number of chemicals (including histamine) in a process called degranulation.
The article from which this was taken needs a great deal of work (perhaps even merging with this article, or else the main allergy article), and I'm not by any means suggesting that it be copy-pasted verbatim. I just think it's a good demonstration of how the structure of the protein interacts with the immune cells is important, rather than just general information on protein folding. I currently don't have the correct biochemistry reference text to re-write that kind of section, but I'll try to get my hands on one in the next few days and see what user-friendly and relevant stuff I can come up with. Jhfortier (talk) 21:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
The students may have the proper text. Ladies, do you have the text books you were using? Or are they still at home? Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately they are at home. I am not sure that the books would have how a protein reacts in relation to the immune system. I can try to see if there is another text book from one of my friends. I have a few friends in microbiology that may have something in their text about this. Other than that I am not really sure where I would find a viable source. hersh016

okay, see what you can find, and work with your partner and Jhf on this.  :) Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

jhfortier, we really appreciate all the help! Would you be willing to maybe tell us how we can collaborate both the "new article" you edited and the old article? That way we don't lose the aspects needed for our project and have the improvements from your help! Clarker1(talk) 23:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The beauty of Wikipedia is that everybody is on equal footing when it comes to content: everybody's vote counts, and consensus is reached through (sometimes lengthy) discussions and weighing the merits of different opinions. While I value your deference, we both (all?) need to work together to find something that works really well for this article, and your vote counts just as much as mine! :)
I see that you've resurrected the sections I had removed. I think I've made my point repeatedly above with respect to redundancy and irrelevance: in my opinion, at the very least, the sections labelled "How proteins work" and "Protein control" need to be removed. These sections don't seem to contain any information relevant to the topic of protein allergies. The protein folding and structure sections should undergo MAJOR overhauls (in my humble opinion) so that they are brief, and give details which are relevant to the protein allergy response (e.g. "certain amino acid residues are commonly found at the active sites where proteins and immune cells interact, causing the allergic reaction" or something to that effect). If you really really think that the sections I've mentioned above (How Proteins Work and Protein Control) belong in the article, my only suggestion is to get another objective peer review from an experienced editor.
I'm not exactly sure what the criteria are for your assignment, so I'm not really able to say how the article can continue to fulfill your assignment's needs. I'm under the impression that your instructor is very Wiki-savvy, and can easily review "removed" content (in the article's history) to see what you had written. If you have requirements with respect to the length of the article, might I suggest we assimilate some of the content from the article food allergy onto this page? They have a promising-looking section regarding diagnosis which could be moved over to this article (either directly, or in a paraphrased form). Another thought would be expanding on the non-food protein allergies; we have a section about the foods which cause allergies, but now a section on non-food protein allergens would be helpful.
As a final note, depending on how involved this project is (again, I have no idea of the criteria) you might even consider merging the entire "Food Allergy" article to this one. That article seems to indicate that all food allergies are protein allergies (I have no idea if this is true...that article is not really well-written or well-referenced), and if this is true, then these articles could likely be merged over the next few weeks/months. Just something to think about...
Wow... this was WAY longer than I meant it to be...haha, I do tend to babble. I understand completely that you're trying to earn a good grade (I've been through the Undergrad process, and know how important grades are), but my perspective is that of an editor working to improve the article without overburdening them with details. Hopefully we can find some good consensus that works for everybody! Jhfortier (talk) 02:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
J, they told me in class today they had added parts of it back into the article. Clearly one of the students feels strongly about it, and I tend to agree that just because there is anotherentire article about protein and protein folding does not mean that the issue should not be mentioned here, with a simplified explanation. I edit some of the history articles, and repeat material often, despite the presence of other full-length articles on the subject. For example, even though there is a perfectly good article on, for example, the French Revolution, does not mean I won't insert a couple of paragraphs about the French revolution into something I'm editing. So I'm not particularly concerned that there is a bit on protein creation and protein folding, as long as it does not dominate the article, which I don't think it does. I do think the article should be heavily wikilinked in those sections to the other articles on proteins and protein creation and structure, but to give an accessible version of the protein and how it relates to allergies in an article about protein allergies doesn't seem to me to be out of line. Let's see what the ladies say about this, okay? Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Ladies, you'll still need to relate the sections you added back to allergies, though. It's not just a matter of describing proteins but describing them as they relate to allergies. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

As suggested, we've linked the article to the allergy, protein, and protein folding page. Also, I will add stuff from the food allergy page, also as requested. Would I just cite the information from wikipedia? Is that allowed? Clarker1 (talk) 00:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the other article, and are you confident in its accuracy? It has cites you can also use. Would it be difficult to cite proper reliable sources? J? what do you think?Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The one book we used has a section that contains information that is also in the food article we can use. thanks!Clarker1 (talk) 00:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

If you feel that it is best to remove some information that is fine. We just didn't feel that all of it should be removed, as our professor stated. Thanks for all of your help. So should I take some of the details out of the sections and make it a more general description?hersh016 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by165.190.89.146 (talk) 03:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the general consensus is that some of the information belongs, and some of it doesn't. If there's a general feeling that the structure and folding information really belongs, I'll yield that point to the general consensus. What I keep coming back to is the information about protein regulation (feedback inhibition and GTP binding don't have anything to do with allergies), and the information about the various roles of proteins (catalysts, signal receptors, etc etc). I'm going to make a few changes, and maybe we can work from there? I'm hoping that some compromise on both sides (rather than just reverts to old versions) can be found. Jhfortier(talk) 05:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Ooookay! I worked on a few of the sections (structure, level of organization, and functionality). The information in there has changed very very little; what I've done is us a bit more of a summary style, combine many short sentences into longer ones etc etc. Hopefully everybody finds this acceptable. The wiki-linking I've done is, I think, fairly good; for example, in the functionality section, there's a mention of a protein's "job", and then a wikilink to the full article, in case someone wants to read about protein motors, or enzymatic catalysts etc. Thoughts? Jhfortier (talk) 06:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


thank you Jhfortier! Clarker1 (talk) 16:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I was actually going to remove that part this morning, because after I read it more closely I understand where you are coming from. So you think we should leave it now? I am willing to do whatever you feel is best for this article to be the best that it can be. I truly appreciate your help with this project. hersh016 (talk)

I decided to remove the part on protein control. I do not think that it fits. Jhfortier, thank you so much for your help in trying to edit those sections, but I agree with you that it is best to remove them for the sake of the flow for the rest of the article! hersh016(talk)

Ok so I made those last few changes without signing into my account.. I just wanted to be sure that you knew I was on during our class time. hersh016 (talk) —Preceding undatedcomment added 13:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC).

I think that's a good move, Hersh016, and makes the overall article stronger. Perhaps a section on protein allergies not related to food? As it stands right now, this article is very food-focussed, so maybe some mention of other protein allergies might be helpful.
I've also got some concerns about the tables. They're very well formatted, but I don't know if they're necessarily helpful to the article as a whole. An alternative idea might be a table showing how prevalent some allergies are, particularly the common ones such as peanut and soy. Just a thought... Jhfortier (talk) 15:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
or collapsing tables. .... Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

GA review

Annoyingly, Ike9898 just quick-failed this without consulting Jhfortier or the talk page. I have posted an objection on the talk page for Good article noms. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I reverted the quick fail and have listed the article on hold on the GAnom page, with you, Jhfortier as the reviewer. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Auntieruth, I'm actually quite upset with this development. I was never asked to GA review this article (I believe I've made my opinion clear on my view of this article's readiness). I was contacted for a peer review for this article, which is ongoing, and I'm currently quite happy with the way that the article is shaping up. It's been great working in collaboration with the other editors of this page, and the compromises are really improving the page, I think.
At this point, I feel that I've contributed far too much to this article to be an objective GA reviewer, and (more importantly) I really don't appreciate being appointed to the role without anybody even asking; it lead to another very busy editor using up her time explaining the GA review process (with which I'm already quite familiar). I'll be removing my name from the GA nom page with respect to this review. Jhfortier (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this article should be removed from the GA queue until it's ready? Sasata(talk) 19:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Jh, I thought you were doing a GA, I apologize for upsetting you. The bulk of discussion came under the title of something relating to GA review so I figured that was going on. I'll suggest to the editors that they withdraw the nom for a bit until it can be improved, and then resubmit it. Will that be okay? Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

withdrawal of GA nom for a few days, until it's in order

Ladies, I've asked that the GA nom be withdrawn for a few days, just so you have the time to fix problems that have arisen. I had misunderstood what Jh was doing--not GA, but peer review--and in discussion on the GA nominations talk page, we concluded that perhaps it would be good to pull the nomination for a brief time until you have the chance to make your changes and incorporate the peer review material. Withdrawal will not influence your grade. Auntieruth55(talk) 21:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the nom again. I saw the article in the list of nominations, took a look at it and immediately saw that it contains a lot of incorrect information (as well as a lot of good stuff). It is simply not ready to be nominated, and looking back over the history here, multiple people have said so. Please do not renominate the article until it has stabilized. The GA process is not suited to articles that need major rewriting. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 18:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I need to chime in and I'm not trying to be a pain. You should read the GA criteria, and if you don't think your article already meets those criteria, you shouldn't nominate it. Nominating an article for GA is not meant as a mechanism to solicit feedback (although, of course, feedback is given). ike9898 (talk) 23:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Lead section

I apologize if this comment is redundant, I haven't read all of the discussion. The lead section needs a lot of work. It needs to encompass the most important points of the whole subject of Protein Allergy, so that if that's the only section a reader looked at, he would know very clearly what the article is about. The lead section should not, in my opinion, explain what a protein is. ike9898 (talk) 16:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello Ike9898. As you saw on the top of the article page, this article is undersignificant revision right now. We're hammering out a lot of different points about the actual content of the article, and so far consensus has been reached on a lot of points. It's been quite productive so far.
I tend to write lead sections the same way I write scientific abstracts: after all the content stuff is done. When we have the article in a more complete state, it will be far easier to write a lead that adequately summarizes the entire article. Although it could use some work, I'm sure the lead will due for the next few weeks while we all work on the article. Jhfortier(talk) 18:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for fixing the lead! I was getting around to it, being busy with end of the year things made it hard to get it done. Thanks so much for all your help this semester regarding the article!Clarker1 (talk) 19:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Happy to help! I'm sure it'll go under a few more transformations as the article improves; I've got a really neat food-protein allergy article at home that I keep meaning to use to enhance this article, but (like you) things have been just too crazy! I'll try to get to it later this week!Jhfortier (talk) 21:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Combining sections of protein background info

Just wondering what everybody would think of the idea of combining all of the background information on proteins (structure, organization, folding) into one Section with a bunch of sub-sections? The content is brief enough, and I think it would make the table of contents a bit less cluttered. Thoughts? Jhfortier (talk) 04:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I was just thinking that. I do think it also needs to specifically relate why and how proteins link to allergies, and I'm still waiting for that to happen. Auntieruth55(talk) 17:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I combined the protein sections. I titled the subsections Protein background, but if there is a better suggestion, please let me know!Clarker1 (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Also, I added what I think fits into the lead of "Allergic Response." It is a few brief lines about how IgE tag molecules and how it is not known why some people produce allergies to proteins or how.Clarker1 (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Isn't that the crux of the argument about including the protein sections, though (if yes, it should go first). There are a number of unique properties of proteins which allow them to become allergens. Specifically, stabilizing forces in the tertiary and quaternary structure of the proteins allow them to resist degradation and interact properly with IgE immune cells. Does this mean: Stabilizing forces in normal protein development allow them to resist degradation and interact properly with the IgE immune cells. However, if proteins do not form properly, they have unique properties that convert them from ? into allergens. This can occur at several stages of protein formation.  ??? have I got this right? If so then this needs to go first, and at each stage at which this can happen, you need to explain how what has gone wrong creates the vulnerability. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
What has gone wrong would be the same as how a person becomes allergic to a specific protein, and that is not known what makes a person allergic to something, just that the immune system identifies a nonharmful substance as harmful. I added that into the same section as mentioned above. Clarker1 (talk) 19:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Auntieruth55, I think there's a bit of confusion about protein stability etc etc. One of the properties of most (I can't guarantee all) food protein allegens is that the protein resists degradation from the hot/acidic environment in the stomach in order to be absorbed into the bloodstream and there interact with immune cells. If peanut proteins were all denatured to their amino acid subunits in the stomach, there would be no allergy, because the immune system wouldn't interact with a simple amino acid chain. Disulfide bonds, lots of hydrogen bonding, and other forces make the particular allergenic proteins stable enough that they don't degrade when they're ingested. The complete protein is then able to cross-link with the IgE immune cells, and cause the allergic reaction.
There seems to be a bit of a tendency in this article to indicate that something bad/wrong has happened to make proteins allergens. In truth, allergenic proteins are absolutely normal, it's our immune systems which are working "improperly". So the sentence "if proteins do not form properly, they have unique properties that convert them from ? into allergens" isn't quite right. The proteins are fine, it's the IgE cells which are overactive. Does that make sense at all? Jhfortier (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Jhf, do you have a source for that explanation? I would like to incorporate that before the part where it is mentioned that IgE's tag the protein. I think it provides better explanation!Clarker1 (talk) 20:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Outdent My source is my undergrad degree (haha, go Biochem!) but citation number 16 ("What makes a food protein an allergen?") is a journal article I've been using to reference things that I learned in lectures. If you can access that article through your academic institution, great. If not, I'll keep adding stuff tonight. It seems like a good reference for this article for now.
Right now I'm desperately searching for non-food protein allergies; I'm worried that this article might end up being flagged to be merged with the food allergy article. Any help would be hugely appreciated! Jhfortier (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
JHF, what about latex-induced dermatitus? I vaguely remember reading that this was caused by trace residual proteins in natural latex. What about the allergies people get to animal dander and saliva? Not sure about any of these, but possibly they'll give you a lead.ike9898 (talk) 23:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
My understanding is that the great majority of natural allergens are proteins. If you search Google Scholar for "insect venom protein allergy" and "pollen protein allergy" you'll find lots of publications. I'm sure this is covered in textbooks on immunology, but I'm way out of my domain here so can't be more specific. Looie496 (talk) 02:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

good explanation

This is a good explanation and that explanation needs to be incorporated into the article, and summarized in the lead. In the lead, it jumps from what is a protein to what is an allergy, and missing part is the link between them. As I've indicated, it looks to the non bio chem person (me) that the problem is how the protein forms, but you're telling me that is the immune system, and that is not explained int he article. Is allergy to dog/cat dander a protein allergy?Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Does this help? Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
or this re milk. Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
scholar1;pollen-food allergy; latex allergy;dust mites. this is what I found in a search of google scholar. Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
That explanation (in some form) is under the section 'functionality', as it's related to the functionality of proteins. Some of those references look good, although the first two aren't from peer-reviewed journals and so aren't really reliable references for this article (which falls under the more stringent category wp:medrs). I'll try to work the explanation and those new references into the lead/article in the next little while. Jhfortier (talk) 16:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
The article has been nominated again. I've fixed the bare links, and added a cite (not sure it's as "reliable" as you might want") for something that was marked as needing a ref. There is still an empty section. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Aren't there also food allergies that are not protein based? Strawberries? Citrus? Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Strawberry allergies are protein-linked (brief review of sources suggests that it's a protein related to ripening). Citrus allergies are less clear, because some people are sensitive to citric acid, and others are actually allergic to citrus. Jhfortier (talk) 18:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I read the Latex allergy article (above) and it clearly is not a food, and it is clearly a protein allergy (has the (IgE) response, and the researchers called it a protein allergy). I added a section. Someone should check it to make sure I've paraphrased correctly (and enough). Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
the only other one I can think of is poison ivy. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
and wool--but that might not be a protein? lanolin? Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
These sections look fantastic! I had honestly not even considered poison ivy; I would have thought it elicited a skin reaction the same way a jellyfish sting does (nematocysts). Very very cool stuff! Jhfortier (talk) 01:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I started thinking about what causes poison ivy, and I remembered it was oil. Soooooo.....it is a short trip to that for someone who doesn't know enough to think it wouldn't be right.  ;) Sometimes ignorance is a good thing. And the latex article I found a couple of days ago was also helpful. Someone else will have to unravel the wool allergy. I couldn't figure out if it proteins in lanolin or something else. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Ike says that the poison ivy thing isn't protein based, but it does interact with a protein....so....? Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
A quick check at the relevent Wiki page for the oil (I won't try to spell it) shows quite quickly that it is NOT a protein. My bad for not doing due diligence and looking into it. Regarding it being a protein-ivolving allergy, I think one thing that's really important to keep in mind is that proteins are ubiquitous; even an elementary biochemistry course is insanely eye-opening because you realize that proteins are everywhere. We tend to think of proteins as being found in meats, cheese, eggs and other high-protein foods, but they're also in pretty much every single living organism.
So although the allergy involves protein interaction, it's not technically a protein allergy; the allergy is to a non-protein chemical constituent. Ike seems to be *extremely* savvy about proteins and chemistry, and it never hurts to have that kind of a person checking up on the veracity of the article. Biochemistry-themed writing requires absurdly careful articulation, since things are really unique and sometimes English isn't very good at describing them. I'm glad to have such a diligent editor doing fact-checking. Jhfortier (talk) 17:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Another non-food allergy?

Metabisulfites? the preservatives that are now regulated? They act like allergies, and Ithink they are a protein interaction (not sure). They block the transfer of oxygen and carbon dioxide, if I remember correctly. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Quick check tells me that they're not proteins; metal ions and bisulfites (sulfur-oxygen compounds). Never heard of those; it's quite frightening what industries will put in food!! Jhfortier (talk) 00:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

New Peer Review

I've put in a request for another peer review from an editor who specializes in scientific articles. I really think it needs another critical peer review from somebody familiar with scientific articles would be extremely helpful. Jhfortier (talk) 04:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Info for this topic.....

--222.67.206.22 (talk) 08:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

--222.67.206.22 (talk) 08:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

--222.67.206.22 (talk) 08:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Check your source

In the urushiol section, ".0050 milligrams (7.7×10−5 gr)". Those two values are not equivalent. Once you figure out which value is correct, I can format it for you. ike9898(talk) 17:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

thanks, it's 50 micrograms. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Background

  1. I am not sure that the background section is useful. The background is about proteins well the article is about protein allergies.

Doc James (talk ·contribs · email) 18:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Doc, this has been a bit of a sticking point from the start. As this was a school project, I understand that the students that were writing it wanted to include a lot of background information, and they've been really great about working to help trim down the excess material as they learn to use wikilinks effectively. Their instructor has told me that she's very capable of evaluating their progress based on historical versions of the page, so I'm sure we'd all welcome any edits you'd like to make to trim down the excess. Jhfortier (talk) 01:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge

Most allergies are due to proteins. Wondering if this should be merged with the allergy or thefood allergy article? I do not currently see sufficient justification for it to be separate. We do not have any ICD10 codes etc. like we do in the other article. This topic does not exist onUptodate, gets no direct pubmed hits, or google scholar hits. Doc James (talk ·contribs · email) 18:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Doc, if most allergies are caused by proteins, then perhaps the others should be merged into this one. Clearly, based on this article, there are protein allergies that are not food (latex), and other allergies that are caused by a toxin attaching to a protein on the skin (poison ivy). So... Question. Are protein allergies different from other allergies? If yes, then this should be an article. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Furthermore, food allergy is tagged as needing citations, expansion, clarification, etc. it seems to me that Protein allergies are a subset of allergies, significant enough to warrant their own article regardless of Uptodate. If there are no ICD10 codes, add them. I am the instructor involved in the creation of this article (my students created and wrote it as part of a class assignment), and we did not know which/or how to add the proper ICD10 codes. Clearly you do. So feel free to add them. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes I understand that your class has put a significant amount of work into this article. Wikipedia however should reflect the published literature. If you look at the reference section of this article the majority refer to food allergies not protein allergies. Uptodate, eMedicine, and Medline also refer to this topic as food allergies rather than protein allergies. If you look at journal publications via pubmed you will also see to the reference to food allergies. I will post a note over at WT:MED to see if we can get a further opinions. BTW I am not recommended we delete this content just move it to another name.Doc James (talk · contribs ·email) 18:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I realize that. Let's see what they say at the other. I think this is a better article than the food allergies one (IMO, of course), and it deals neatly with the specifics of a specific kind of allergy. There are often cases of large topics having a really big article, that eventually reverses into a series of smaller break-out articles so that a specific area of the topic can be covered in greater detail. A topic of allergies would certainly be enormous, and as a subarticle of allergies, and of proteins, this one seems well-contained. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
What about merging the appropriate/relevant sections of food allergy into this one, and then moving the food-related parts over to the Food Allergy article, and the other bits (e.g. latex allegies) over to perhaps the main allergy page? I fully support AuntieRuth's opinion that this article is, in many ways, better than the article currently at food allergy. I also support Jmh's statement that the article must support the published literature; I've had concerns for a while that this article might not stand on its own merits, irrespective of how good it was. So how does that sound? Merging the info from Food Allergy into this article, then moving it all over to the Food allergy-titled page? If we can all agree, I'd be happy to start shifting content.Jhfortier (talk) 01:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry JHF I am a little confused on what you suggest. You think we should keep this content and place it in an article named Food allergy with the latex stuff moved to the mainallergy page? If that is the case I agree.Doc James (talk · contribs ·email) 02:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

OUTDENT -- My apologies, I made sense in my head but was terribly inarticulate on paper/wiki. Roughly yes, that's what I mean, and I'm glad we're at least partially in agreement. It seems to me that with a few tweaks, this would be an *excellent* article to go under the heading of Food allergy, especially since the Food allergy article leaves something to be desired on many fronts. Rather than trying to fit all of the good content from Protein allergy to the existing food allergy page, I think we all ought to try moving any good content from Food allergy toProtein allergy, and then move the resulting article to the Food allergy page in its entirety (i.e. replace the Food allergy article). Does that make more sense?

Moving the great information on latex allergies to the main Allergy page (or, heck, to theLatex allergy page, if it isn't already there!) would be another important step, of course.Jhfortier (talk) 03:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes I agree that proposal is a good one and support it.Doc James (talk ·contribs · email) 04:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I'll post an email to the other two editors and see what they think. Much of this makes sense, but I do think that protein allergies should be explained as such. Auntieruth55 (talk) 13:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Seems reasonable. ike9898 (talk) 13:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

okay, making sure I understand this. Major article on "Allergies" would include brief summaries of "protein allergies" and (as a subset of protein allergies) "food allergies", "latex allergies" and allergies caused by toxins interacting with the Integral membrane proteins (such as poison ivy). To do this, we would move some of the food allergy stuff into the protein allergy stuff, replace the food allergy page with the protein allergy page (but naming it food allergies) and creating a a separate article on latex allergies?

If I have this right, then tell me again what the problem with a separate article on protein allergies is? If not all protein allergies are food allergies, but all food allergies are protein allergies, then protein allergies should be on its own, and food allergies should be a sub article of protein allergies. Latex allergies could also be a sub article of protein allergies. And there should be an article on allergies like urushiol-induced contact dermatitis, and they should all be linked back to the protein allergy article. Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Allergies

↓

(1) Allergies caused by protein interactions

↓

(1a) Food allergies
(2a) Latex
(3a) urushiol induced, and others?
(2) Allergies caused by ?
(2a) ?

Auntieruth, there already is a separate article on latex allergy so the information from this page would probably fit quite nicely into there (if it isn't already on that page). Regarding the information on urushiol, it is not a protein allergy and does not belong in this discussion (and there already is a decent article on urushiol-induced contact dermatitis). If you'll forgive my anthrpomorphizing, proteins have their sticky little hands involved in nearly every single cellular process, but in this case they are not the source of the allergy. Allergies caused by protein interactions/allergies which involve interaction with cellular proteins are ALL allergies; at some point along the signal cascade which causes the allergic response, at least one protein will be used.

The thing is, when the average user goes looking for information on food allergies, they'll probably type in food allergies. Moving all of this information (including the fantastic work your students did) would make more sense, since it's the logical place to have the information located. And if people are looking for information about non-food allergies, they can always go to the mainallergy page. I really can't think of a good reason why we shouldn't be taking all of this information and merging it into places where it would be easier to find, more frequently linked-to. Jhfortier (talk) 14:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The reason why we are doing this is because protein allergy is not a a subclassification of allergies used in medicine well food allergy, and latex allergy are. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect the published literature and currently this is a cotrack. We are in fact merging protein allergy into food allergy just most of the content is coming from protein allergy. We will than redirect this page name to the main allergy page. Doc James (talk ·contribs · email) 15:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
If you think this makes sense.... (although I'm not sure it does to me but I'm not a cell biologist, I'm an historian.) Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
further thoughts: if most allergies are due to proteins, or if proteins have their sticky hands in just about all cell functions, then this should also be made clearer in the allergies and food allergies articles. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes I agree. Almost all allergies are due to antigens that are proteins, polysaccharides may be allergenic but this is less common. DNA and lipids are not immunologic unless bound to proteins. Thus the more general information here should be moved Allergy the more specific tofood allergy.Doc James (talk · contribs ·email) 16:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I would feel more confident in this if a great amount of the food allergy article were deleted. I thought that article was poorly written and cited (mostly lists). Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll keep a close eye on the movement of content (Doc seems to be doing it now) and will make sure that the good information doesn't get lost in the shuffle. I do wish we could've had some input from your students on this, but GA noms tend to attract a great deal of attention to articles, and can set in motion big changes from other editors. It'll all turn out as a great article in the end, I'm sure.

they are in finals, so probably aren't available. I sent them an email, but...they also have their grade in the course, so they may not be motivated either. ;) 17:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I have merged with allergy and food allergy

Merged but not sure what to do with this content:

Main article: Proteins

Proteins have unique properties that allow them to become allergens. Specifically, stabilizing forces in the tertiary and quaternary structure of the proteins resist degradation. Subsequently, they interact improperly with IgE immune cells.[1] Most potentially allergenic proteins cannot survive the destructive environment of the digestive tract; similarly, others that are harmless but have strong structure resist the acidic environment of the digestive system and are sometimes tagged by the immune system as harmful.[2]In other reactions, toxins attach to an existing protein. The immune system considers the protein as harmful to the organism, and rejects the protein, causing a dermatological or systemic response.[3]

Protein structure and organization

Main article: Protein structure

A protein is made from a long chain of amino acids, also known as a polypeptide chain, linked via peptide bonds.[4] The higher order structure of a protein depends on the sequence of amino acids which form its primary sequence, as various non-covalent interactions between these amino acids ensure proper protein folding. Proteins have specific amino acid sequences, which all identical proteins share.[5] The twenty different amino acids differ in their side chains, which are relatively large and somewhat polar. These individual amino acids are known as monomers, in the polymer chain known as the protein, which assembles through polymerization.[6]

A protein's secondary structure is created by hydrogen-bond interactions between the amide and carboxyl groups of the amino acid backbone. Secondary structure includes the formation of alpha helices and beta sheets.[4]The tertiary structure is the overall shape of the protein, and is usually driven by the protein's tendency to orient hydrophobic amino acid side chains internally, although hydrogen bonding, ionic interactions and disulfide bonds also help to stabilize proteins in the tertiary state [7] Quaternary structure is the overall combination of polypeptide subunits to form the functional unit. All levels of protein structure are based on the previous level. If there is an error in the primary structure of the protein this will carry to the higher levels.[8]

Protein function

Main article: Protein folding

Protein folding is essential to the overall function of the individual protein. Polypeptide chains are often very long and flexible, which leads to a wide variety of ways for a protein to fold. Non-covalent interactions control the shape and structure of the nascent protein. While a single non-covalent bond is very weak, a combination of many weak bonds provide the needed strength and structure for a given protein. Electrostatic interactions, hydrophobic interactions, hydrogen bonds and van der Waals attractions all aid in protein folding. The specific polar and non-polar side chains of amino acids are also involved the protein's folding and, in turn, its function.[9] The final folded structure of a protein is protein's conformation.[10] A protein's properamino acid sequence is absolutely required to induce proper folding into the quaternary structure. Two common folding patterns seen in proteins are the alpha helix and beta sheets.

The function of a protein is directly determined by its structure, specifically the aforementioned non-covalent bonds. Proteins interact with other molecules at unique protein binding sites on the ligand.[11] Proteins can have a myriad of functions, including the enzymatic catalysts which facilitate essential reactions in cells.[12] Proteins can also act as a cell signal receptor, essential to initiating cellular responses to chemical signals, or as motor proteins, which are involved with movement of or within individual cells. Another example of protein function is that of structural proteins, which enable cell flexibility and support stability.[12]

Proteins and the immune system

The ways in which proteins develop and fold give them their structure; some protein structures allow them to resist degradation in the acidic environment of the digestive tract. Others, which might function as cell signal receptors, can be structurally changed by the attachment of other cells. In both cases, the addition of a cell to a protein, its partial degradation, or its survival of the digestive system causes the immune system to tag the cell as foreign and dangerous. This tagging causes an allergic response.[13]

Doc James (talk ·contribs · email) 17:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

remaining material

As a non-cell biologist, I found that information almost more useful than anything else. It was a clear explanation for the amateur about how proteins are created, function and become integral to the allergy process. I do think it needs to go somewhere. Possibly in the allergy article itself, in a section about allergies and proteins. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay I have moved to the pathophysiology section of the main allergy page. Can you make sure we bring along all the sources that are needed for the refs? I have moved them all to the food allergy page.Doc James (talk · contribs ·email) 17:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I'll check on it tonight to make sure all of the information has settled in well. As for the "leftover" protein information, perhaps it would be well-suited to Simple English Wikipedia? Just a thought... Jhfortier (talk) 17:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
that may be, but I still think it clarifies some of the food allergy issues by explaining not only that they happen but how they happen. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Feel free to also combine into the food allergy page.Doc James (talk ·contribs · email) 18:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Possibly it can go in both places? Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Early Infant Multivitamin Supplementation would be Associated With Increased Risk for Food Allergy and Asthma

This research from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) shows a link between allergies/Asthma and early infant multivitamin supplementation:[2],the summary of the research:[3]. I am not shure if this is true as there are some other researches that contradict the research made by the AAP, here is the article:[4]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.68.92 (talk) 14:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The reference section needs to be closely examined and ......

I leave it for ISO 690 panelles to fix it up --222.67.206.22 (talk) 08:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Navbox

What we need is a Navbox like the one found here. [5] Will make one when I have time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Instead of creating a new upper-right-hand-corner template, I'd recommend expanding the navbox Template:Allergic conditions. The upper-right-hand-corner templates are maintenance nightmares, because you can only have one per page, which leads to jurisdictional disputes as to the true identity of a page. (Should food allergy have a "food" box in the upper right, or an "allergy" box?) By contrast, the navboxes stack beautifully, and have javascript to automatically collapse when more than one is on a page. Almost all new navigation templates, across all Wiki projects, use the navbox approach rather than upper-right-hand-corner templates. --Arcadian (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I sort of like the right upper corner navbox. Expecially for complicated conditions with many subpages.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

New information from Protein allergy

There's been a big migration of information from the article formerly known as Protein allergy to this page. I'm going to start going over the content to reduce the amount of duplication (there's bound to be some) and checking to be sure all of the citations migrated correctly. Any and all help with this would be appreciated!!! Jhfortier (talk) 05:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

BTW I would like to welcome you and your class to Wikipedia. If you need access to any journal articles drop me a note and I may be able to help access them.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the kind words; I'm actually not involved in the educational project. I ended up involved in the article through a peer review request. Thank you, though, I'm sure if the editors involved with the educational project need help on other articles they'd be happy to have an experienced editor to talk to! Jhfortier (talk) 06:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the talk from protein allergy should also be migrated here. I'll leave this to someone else, because I'm only paying a little attention to this merge and I don't want to disrupt on-going work. ike9898 (talk) 12:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. Jhfortier (talk) 14:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Rice allergy

How common are allergic reactions to rice? I had a bad allergy to rice as an infant but I outgrew it. My father has always been allergic to it, but not as bad as I was. It just gives him an upset stomach. 66.232.94.33 (talk) 00:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Per the header on this talkpage, this is not a forum for discussion of the subject. If you have questions or concerns about allergies, consult an appropriate healthcare practitioner. Jhfortier (Talk · contribs ) 16:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Onion allergy

Is there any data on how many people are allergic to onions? http://www.instah.com/allergies/onion-allergy/ I watched one episode (which was one too many) of Pamela Anderson's TV show where she went to a Mexican restaurant and ordered a dish without onions. It was served with a huge amount of onions so she sent it back, saying that she was allergic to onions, "That could kill me!". I never thought of anyone being allergic to onions before seeing that. 66.232.94.33 (talk) 03:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Article talkpages are not forums meant to discuss the topic; they're for discussing content and improvements to the article. If you have reliable references to provide for onion allergies on this page, then it could be added as appropriate to the article. Thank you! Jhfortier (Talk · contribs ) 16:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Cross reactivity section

"Peanut and tree nut allergies are less likely to be outgrown, although evidence now shows[19] that about 20% of those with peanut allergies and 9% of those with tree nut allergies.[20]"

Not sure what the evidence shows, and have no time to check the link... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.58.248.252 (talk) 12:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Skin Testing

It isn't mentioned on the food allergy page but is mentioned on the allergy testing page that there is another skin test for diagnosing allergies. Skin end point titration, or the intradermal test, can be used to diagnose allergies by injecting a small sample of the allergen under the skin. My food allergies were diagnosed this way. Fickce4 (talk) 13:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Deaths

Several articles (such as this and this) call into question the 100-200 number. The Jade Knight (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

immune system "thinks"...

This article repeated refers to elements of the immune system "thinking". It's a useful model, buy it's not true. It reacts, but doesn't "think". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.153.161.87 (talk) 16:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Needs more on non-IgE food allergies

There is a good deal of recent evidence on non-IgE food allergies - that is, adverse immune system reactions to food proteins, other than celiac disease. More of that needs to be in this article. There's a Wikipedia article on food intolerance, which includes a partial discussion of non-IgE food allergies. But, that discussion doesn't belong in the food intolerance article, since food intolerance is defined as a non-immune reaction to a food. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puffysphere (talk • contribs) 16:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Cause Section

Nothing in the cause section actually explains the causes of food allergies. Perhaps it should be renamed? 76.114.25.97 (talk) 05:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

NAET

Shouldn't there be a discussion on this topic?108.23.217.252 (talk) 20:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Removed large section "cross contamination"

I removed a large, very badly written section just now, which was not salvageable (though I suppose someone can try if they want to). The actual subject may be worth it to revive, but it was full of how-to information and stuff like "Cross-contamination can happen anywhere, and in order to protect yourself and those around you, one must take certain precautions to care for others and their food preparation whether it be at home or in public." Silenceisgod (talk) 02:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Protein structure and folding sections???

What the heck are the sections on protein structure and protein folding doing in this article ???
They are completely out of place. Puffysphere (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Add a section covering possible causes?

Red meat allergy caused by tick bites

Tick bites result in the injection of a protein called alpha-gal (which is present in red meat) into the blood stream causing red meat allergy. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3057034/

Food allergies caused by proton pump inhibitors (PPI)

When acidity in the stomach is reduced by acid reducing medications, food proteins are not broken down. They travel to the intestine intact and get absorbed into the blood stream causing food allergies. http://www.immuneweb.com/wenzhai/pdf/010301.pdf

Gelatin allergy caused by gelatin in the DTaP vaccine

Gelatin in the vaccine injected into the blood stream causes gelatin allergy. Nakayama T, Aizawa C, Kuno-Sakai H. A clinical analysis of gelatin allergy and determination of its causal relationship to the previous administration of gelatin-containing acellular pertussis vaccine combined with diphtheria and tetanus toxoids. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1999;103:321--5. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9949325

Vinucube (talk) 04:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Great work tracking these references! Looks like we'd have to be careful how we present the information per WP:MEDRS. At a glance of them, it doesn't look like the causes are definitive. --Ronz (talk) 16:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
There is a pattern which can be traced back to Charles Richet's Nobel Prize winning discovery. He injected dogs with sea anemone toxin. The dogs' immune system developed sensitization to the toxin. In other words, the dogs became allergic to the toxin. The next time he injected the toxin, they developed anaphylaxis.
It is also common to induce food allergy in mice in the laboratory by injecting them with food proteins along with alum as an adjuvant.
For example: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12495022
Viewed in this context, the evidence is more compelling. Perhaps references can be included to the above.
Vinucube (talk) 01:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
If there are authoritative scientific surveys or similiar MEDRS sources, then we can present it definitively. Otherwise we have to be more cautious. Please review WP:MEDRS. --Ronz (talk) 15:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Nakayama et al., above is cited in CDC's ACIP http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr6002a1.htm Looks like other sections such as "Traditional Chinese Medicine" are based on the same kind of references I am providing. The section on Vaccines seems to be based on a speculative news story. So is it ok to include the material I am proposing as it seems to be of the same or better quality, while awaiting more secondary sources per WP MEDRS? Vinucube (talk) 00:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

It would be best to ensure MEDRS is being followed where ever it applies. --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Review

... of emerging modalities doi:10.1172/JCI72061 (bioscientific approach). JFW | T@lk 21:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Image

does no look like a food allergy but someone bit their cheek. Thus restored the prior image. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Maybe, I just followed what the caption in the file info said. Brandmeistertalk 14:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
No worries. I do not think that caption is correct though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Food allergy vs food intolerance

I've been doing a little work on this topic. The old lingo kinda used these different words loosely, including grouping non-IgE into a food intolerance. Modern nomenclature is that food hypersensitivity (which now wrongly redirects here) is an umbrella term for the two and all immune responses (including non-IgE) are food allergies. I've had to do some cleanup work at food allergy and this will likewise probably require cleanup II | (t - c) 23:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Food allergy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

EPD

Should EPD be included under treatment? It's debatable if it works or not, but it is available in Canada and Europe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enzyme_Potentiated_Desensitisation

There is a lot of research on immunotherapy - attempts to instigate tolerance with repeated, controlled,oral exposure to allergens. Most of this is with individual food allergens. The idea of enzyme-potentiated desensitization (EPD) is that combining multiple allergens with enzymes in injection form may be effective, too. EPD, and a variant called LDA (Ultra Low Dose Enzyme Activated Immunotherapy; see http://www.drshrader.com/pr02.htm) are not approved for use in the U.S. David notMD (talk) 15:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

GMO and allergies

Two topics that should be covered:

A) Is it possible that genetic modification of plants or animals could introduce allergenic proteins into foods not thought to contain allergens? Are there safeguards in place to be conducted before a GMO crop is approved for commercial use? See Lee TH, et al (2017). PMID 28473652
B) Could genetic modification be used to remove the DNA that codes for allergenic proteins?

Interesting concepts. David notMD (talk) 14:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

It's definitely an old enough area of research where I'd expect we'd find reviews by now. --Ronz (talk) 16:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Lee 2017 is a good and recent review on the "A" topic. Science journal mentions of "B" appear to be pre-clinical or early clinical, and so perhaps premature to incorporate into the article, even in a 'Research' section. David notMD (talk) 14:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Added sub-section to Society and culture to address genetically modified food concerns. Cited Lee 2017, Dunn 2017, Lee 2017. Did not add any content about the idea of making foods non-allergenic through genetic engineering. David notMD (talk) 02:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Addenbrooke’s Clinical Trial

Cambridge University AddenBrooke's Hospital just released details of a successful clinical trial for Hyposensitization of food allergies, specifically peanuts.

Peanut Allergy Trial

see also http://www.nhs.uk/news/2009/02February/Pages/Peanutallergytreatment.aspx which gives a link to the paper

Clark AT, Islam S, King Y; et al. (February 17, 2009). "Successful oral tolerance induction in severe peanut allergy". Allergy. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

There is other primary research on OIT (oral immunotherapy). What's needed in the article is content cited by good secondary sources (meta-analyses and systematic reviews). My feeling is that the research continues, successes may depend on which food is being researched, etc. David notMD (talk) 03:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Transplant-acquired food allergy

Perhaps premature to add this to the article, but an interesting medical situation: transplant-acquired food allergy. Highest risk for pediatric liver transplants. David notMD (talk) 14:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Hosakoppal SS, Bryce PJ. Transplant-acquired food allergy: current perspectives. J Asthma Allergy. 2017 Dec 1;10:307-315. PMID: 29238209
  • Newman EN, Firszt R. Post-transplantation Development of Food Allergies. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2018 Jan 29;18(1):4. PMID: 29380059.

Another research topic - genetics

Genetics of food allergy is another topic worth considering for the Research section. This 2016 review identifies genes associated with food allergy and suggests that some of these genes are regulated through DNA methylation. If environmental factors can affect host methylation, that is a research pathway toward understanding trends in incidence of food allergy. David notMD (talk) 15:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Li J, Maggadottir SM, Hakonarson H. Are genetic tests informative in predicting food allergy? Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol. 2016 Jun;16(3):257-64. PMID: 27070332;

Regulation / laws pertaining to a condition

Typically go under society and culture and IMO fit best their. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:54, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I have followed the same scheme that Milk allergy currently has. It has been reviewed for FA, so I thought it was more appropriate.
I have no objection to leaving it in Society and culture, but it would probably be good to make a brief mention in treatment. It is a point of vital importance, which most people do not know.
What do you think about this, is it correct? --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 23:22, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Yah I think that is fine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
:) --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 23:46, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Classification and mechanisms

The classification and mechanisms of allergies need to be expanded on this page, as has been done in the milk allergy page. I ping @David notMD: in case you are interested, because you are doing a great job on these pages. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 18:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I started expanding peanut allergy, and then got distracted by the sad status of the Vitamin E and Folate articles. My intention is to nominate both of thoses E for Good Article, and then attend to food allergy and peanut allergy while waiting for someone to start the GA review processes. David notMD (talk) 19:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Potentially-misleading claim concerning vaccines and allergies

The article currently states that "An Institute of Medicine report says that food proteins contained in vaccines, such as gelatin, milk, or egg can cause sensitization (development of allergy) in vaccine recipients, to those food items." It cites a 2011 report "Adverse Effects of Vaccines: Evidence and Causality", http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/Reports/2011/Adverse-Effects-of-Vaccines-Evidence-and-Causality.aspx . This is misleading. The report summary does say that there is strong evidence of a link between certain vaccines and anaphylaxis -- a sudden allergic reaction. But, at least in the great majority of cases mentioned in the report, this is because the patient already had sensitivity to one or more ingredients in the vaccine. The word "sensitization" occurs nowhere in the study, and I can't find any cases where the study describes someone developing a sensitivity to an allergen as a result of a vaccine. 24.19.3.161 (talk) 00:08, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

In the third paragraph of the article it states early exposure may be protective. To me early exposure was something of the unknown, and for this reason I gave how someone may go about being early exposed. This is done through allergy testing by a specialist. The specialist can preform a skin test, blood test, or an elimination test A'Jenai Thompson A'Jenai Thompson (talk) 21:11, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

References checks needed

Several-to-many of the references either no longer work, or are to content that does not support the text, or are about result of individual clinical trials, i.e., not meeting the standards of WP:MEDRS. A references review is needed. David notMD (talk) 11:57, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Shellfish allergy article needed

For the eight most common food allergens: milk, eggs, soy, wheat, peanuts, tree nuts fish and shellfish, only shellfish does not have its own article. An lesser argument can be made for articles on allergies to sesame seeds, mustard and lupin, as labeling for these allergens is already required in some countries. David notMD (talk) 12:04, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Shellfish allergy article needed?

For the eight most common food allergens: milk, eggs, soy, wheat, peanuts, tree nuts fish and shellfish, only shellfish does not have its own article. David notMD (talk) 10:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Shellfish allergy article created in December 2020 and GA nominated in April 2021. David notMD (talk) 10:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Sesame

Added US FDA decision to call for voluntary labeling of sesame as an ingredient when it was previously allowed to be covered by "spice" or "flavor." Now "spice (sesame)" or "flavor (sesame)." If an ingredient - say sesame seeds on a bagel - was already required listed as an ingredient. Not called out as an allergen. David notMD (talk) 03:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

April 24, 2021: U.S. Congress passes and President signs FASTER Act https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/578 making sesame a food label required allergen. Label changes have until Jan 1, 2023 to take place. Other countries had already required sesame to be labeled. David notMD (talk) 11:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Unguyen17.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 18 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): A'Jenai Thompson.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Added a potrayal in media section

How food allergies are portayed in film and television is oten misleading, proviing audiences with wrong information that can have real-life consequences. David notMD (talk) 17:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I have no faith in the overall accuracy of depictions of any medical issue, having seen way too many misrepresentations of mental patients and wildly inaccurate depictions of the effects of certain drugs. Anyway, you have to find sources specifically covering the negative effect of media portrayals on the general population. Dimadick (talk) 11:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
First, "portrayal." Second, you are correct - inaccuracies of depiction of medical issues exist widely in film and television and other media. There, should, however, be an effort to support the conjecture that these media portrayals of food allergy incidents have a real life negative impact. I will work on that. David notMD (talk) 16:40, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: ENGW3307 Adv Writing for the Sciences 14214

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2022 and 14 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bliu133 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Bliu133 (talk) 01:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

  1. ^ Bannon GA (2004). "What makes a food protein an allergen?". Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 4 (1): 43–6. PMID 14680621. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  2. ^ Mayo Clinic.Causes of Food Allergies. April 2010.
  3. ^ C. Michael Hogan. "Western poison-oak: Toxicodendron diversilobum." GlobalTwitcher, ed. Nicklas Stromberg. 2008. Accessed 30 April 2010.
  4. ^ a b Freeman 53
  5. ^ Alberts 121
  6. ^ Freeman 48
  7. ^ Freeman 54
  8. ^ Freeman 56
  9. ^ Alberts 123
  10. ^ Alberts 124
  11. ^ Alberts 141
  12. ^ a b Freeman 44
  13. ^ Mayo Clinic.Causes of Food Allergies. Hogan. "Western poison-oak: Toxicodendron diversilobum."
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Food_allergy/Archive_1"