Murangi T, Mans B, Pienaar R, Botha M, Facey-Thomas H, et al.
The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. Global •
The presence of galactose-α-1,3-galactose (alpha-gal) in tick salivary antigens has been implicated to initiate host IgE responses resulting in sensitization to alpha-gal. We sought to investigate the presence of alpha-gal in different anatomic locations in native South African tick species at different feeding and developmental stages and the ability of sera from our allergic cohort to bind to these tick proteins. Alpha-gal-containing proteins in laboratory-reared ticks at different feeding and developmental stages were detected through Western blotting and immunohistochemical staining. IgE and IgG4 toward the tick proteins were analyzed via ELISA. There is differential expression of alpha-gal in endemic South African ticks and . Immunoblotting demonstrated an increase in the prominence of alpha-gal-containing protein bands in salivary glands to be proportional to feeding time. Alpha-gal in both fed and unfed ticks was localized in the salivary acini and testes. IgE and IgG4 to antigens were significantly raised in alpha-gal-allergic individuals. There was a correlation between anti- IgE and anti-alpha-gal IgE in the alpha-gal-allergic group. Inhibition of human serum anti-alpha-gal IgE to and proteins was significantly reduced by the addition of bovine thyroglobulin. We anticipate repeated exposure to differentially expressed and alpha-gal-containing salivary proteins during feeding to cause alpha-gal sensitization.
Crutchfield and Hereth have proposed the deliberate promotion of tick-borne alpha-gal syndrome (AGS)-a condition typically causing red meat allergy-as a strategy to reduce meat consumption and hence animal suffering. While we share their concern for the ethical treatment of nonhuman animals, we argue that their proposal is morally indefensible and counterproductive. First, we challenge the empirical assumption that inducing AGS would reduce overall animal suffering. Evidence suggests that most people who avoid red meat increase their intake of poultry and fish, leading to a net increase in animal suffering as well as the number of animals killed. Second, we argue that intentionally infecting humans with AGS would violate fundamental moral rights, particularly the right against bodily interference, and that analogies to vaccination are misleading. Unlike vaccination, AGS confers no health benefit, imposes lifelong risks, and would be introduced through a method that is disproportionally coercive. Third, from a virtue-ethical perspective, the proposal fails to promote good moral character. Avoiding red meat due to fear of allergic reactions reflects self-interest rather than moral virtue and, as an instance of moral paternalism, risks provoking psychological reactance and moral resistance. Consequently, Crutchfield and Hereth's "Convergence Argument" for the claim that promoting AGS is morally obligatory collapses. Efforts to reduce meat-eating must instead rely on education, persuasion, and structural reform that respect human rights while fostering genuine moral virtue.
