DeCure's autonomous Immuno AI scientist is researching a drug-repurposing hypothesis for peanut allergic reaction — screening already-approved drugs against its 1-gene Open Targets disease module to publish open-access research. Research is fast; the path to publication is funded in milestone stages.
Disease modulePeanut allergic reaction maps to a 1-gene Open Targets module — the target space DeCure's AI scientist screens approved drugs against.
DeCure.ai methodSignature reversal (LINCS) plus network proximity (STRING) rank already-approved drugs likely to perturb this module — the same engine that produces DeCure.ai's repurposing hypotheses.
Repurposing thesisScreening approved medicines against this disease module, then publishing the evidence for the strongest candidate. Known pharmacology and human exposure data make the first question sharper — they do not establish safety or efficacy in a new indication.
Research record
01
ResearchComing soon
Candidate research + dossier — target rationale, drug-repurposing thesis and evidence pack.proof: Published dossier + on-chain hash
02
ValidationComing soon
In-vitro biological validation at a contract research org (CRO).proof: CRO contract + in-vitro report
03
Peer review & paperComing soon
Peer-reviewed paper published open-access (preprint + journal).proof: DOI + open-access link + on-chain hash
Current lead
No approved-drug candidate for peanut allergic reaction is corroborated in the literature DeepSearch retrieved. Some conditions are managed with non-pharmacological care — a device, surgery or physical therapy — rather than a medicine; that may be the case here, or the literature we found may simply be too sparse yet to support a drug-repurposing angle.
Molecular view
interleukin 4 receptor (IL4R) — IL4R is one of the genes genetically linked to this disease in Open Targets — shown as context, not as a drug target we're pursuing: no approved-drug candidate for this disease is yet corroborated in the literature we found.
Loading structure…
helix sheet apo structuredrag to rotate · scroll to zoom
RCSB Protein Data Bank · entry 1IAR · 2.3 Å · ligand none (apo structure). Experimental structure, not a prediction.
What the evidence adds up to
Four children with severe peanut allergy underwent oral immunotherapy with daily doses of peanut flour increasing from 5 mg to 800 mg of protein over two-weekly increments. Before treatment, their dose thresholds ranged from 5 to 50 mg of peanut protein (one fortieth to one quarter of a whole peanut), and one child had anaphylaxis during the baseline challenge requiring adrenaline. After treatment, all four tolerated at least 10 whole peanuts (approximately 2.38 g protein) in a repeat challenge, representing a 48-fold to 478-fold increase in dose threshold. No subject required adrenaline during the updosing phase.
A retrospective chart review across five allergy practices examined 352 patients who received 240,351 doses of peanut, peanut butter, or peanut flour during oral immunotherapy. Ninety-five reactions were treated with epinephrine; only three patients required a second dose of epinephrine, and none needed more intensive treatment. The target maintenance dose was reached by 298 patients, a success rate of 85%. The authors concluded that peanut oral immunotherapy carries a risk of systemic reactions but that those reactions were recognised and treated promptly in the context of qualified allergy care.
In a mouse model study, three genetically different strains were sensitised intraperitoneally to peanut proteins and then challenged. Only C3H mice produced allergen-specific antibodies and cytokines and developed anaphylaxis, with a drop in body temperature upon challenge. Among the major peanut allergens, Ara h 2 showed the strongest anaphylactic potential. BALB/c and C57BL/6 mice produced little or no peanut-specific antibodies and experienced no hypersensitivity reactions. The authors identified C3H mice as a suitable strain for modelling peanut-allergic anaphylaxis.
What is still missing is a large, randomised, placebo-controlled trial that measures not just dose threshold but also the rate of severe reactions during real-world exposure. The mouse data show that strain choice determines whether a model works at all, which means preclinical findings may not translate across species or even across mouse strains. No study here addresses whether oral immunotherapy actually reduces the risk of life-threatening anaphylaxis outside the clinic, nor whether the protection persists after treatment stops. Funding for long-term follow-up and for trials that stratify patients by baseline severity and sensitisation profile is lacking.
Evidence
Retrieved by DeepSearch across 234,678,978 indexed works and resolved on OpenAlex — ranked by citations, including the results that did not work.
Allergy · 2009 · 200 citations
Successful oral tolerance induction in severe peanut allergy
AbstractBACKGROUND: Peanut allergy is common, potentially severe and rarely resolves causing impaired quality of life. No disease-modifying treatment exists and there is therefore a need to develop a therapeutic intervention. AIMS OF THE STUDY: The aim of this study was to investigate whether peanut oral immunotherapy (OIT) can induce clinical tolerance to peanut protein. METHODS: Four peanut-allergic children underwent OIT. Preintervention oral challenges were performed to confirm clinical allergy and define the amount of protein required to cause a reaction (dose thresholds). OIT was then administered as daily doses of peanut flour increasing from 5 to 800 mg of protein with 2-weekly dose increases. After 6 further weeks of treatment, the oral challenge was repeated to define change in dose threshold and subjects continued daily treatment. RESULTS: Preintervention challenges confirmed peanut allergy and revealed dose thresholds of 5-50 mg (1/40-1/4 of a whole peanut); one subject had anaphylaxis during challenge and required adrenaline injection. All subjects tolerated immunotherapy updosing to 800 mg protein and i.m. adrenaline was not required. Each subject tolerated at least 10 whole peanuts (approximately 2.38 g protein) in postintervention challenges, an increase in dose threshold of at least 48-, 49-, 55- and 478-fold for the four subjects. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated a substantial increase in dose threshold after OIT in all subjects, including the subject with proven anaphylaxis. OIT was well tolerated and conferred protection against at least 10 peanuts, more than is likely to be encountered during accidental ingestion.
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology In Practice · 2014 · 110 citations · open access
Oral Immunotherapy for Peanut Allergy: Multipractice Experience With Epinephrine-treated Reactions
AbstractBACKGROUND: Peanut allergy creates the risk of life-threatening anaphylaxis that can disrupt psychosocial development and family life. The avoidance management strategy often fails to prevent anaphylaxis and may contribute to social dysfunction. Peanut oral immunotherapy may address these problems, but there are safety concerns regarding implementation in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this report is to communicate observations about the frequency of epinephrine-treated reactions during peanut oral immunotherapy in 5 different allergy/immunology practices. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of peanut oral immunotherapy performed in 5 clinical allergy practices. RESULTS: A total of 352 treated patients received 240,351 doses of peanut, peanut butter, or peanut flour, and experienced 95 reactions that were treated with epinephrine. Only 3 patients received 2 doses of epinephrine, and no patient required more intensive treatment. A total of 298 patients achieved the target maintenance dose for a success rate of 85%. CONCLUSION: Peanut oral immunotherapy carries a risk of systemic reactions. In the context of oral immunotherapy, those reactions were recognized and treated promptly. Peanut oral immunotherapy may be a suitable therapy for patients managed by qualified allergists/immunologists.
Strain matters in mouse models of peanut‐allergic anaphylaxis: Systemic <scp>IgE</scp>‐dependent and Ara h 2‐dominant sensitization in <scp>C3H</scp> mice
AbstractBACKGROUND: Peanut allergy accounts for the majority of food-induced hypersensitivity reactions and can lead to lethal anaphylaxis. Animal models can provide an insight into the immune mechanisms responsible for sensitization and allergic anaphylaxis. However, different mouse strains and sensitization protocols can influence the successful development of a peanut allergic mouse model. OBJECTIVE: We aimed at developing a systemic anaphylaxis model of peanut allergy that resembles human anaphylaxis. We compared the immunological and clinical responses in genetically different mouse strains. METHODS: Female BALB/c, C57BL/6, and C3H mice were intraperitoneally sensitized and later challenged with peanut proteins. Allergen-specific serology was done by ELISA, and anaphylaxis was evaluated by monitoring changes in body temperature upon systemic challenge. RESULTS: Sensitization to peanut was successful in C3H mice and triggered production of allergen-specific antibodies, cytokines and anaphylaxis. Allergic reactions were characterized by the release of allergic mediators and by changes in leukocyte populations in blood and in the peritoneal cavity. Among the identified major peanut allergens, Ara h 2 showed the strongest anaphylactic potential. Much lower or no trigger of peanut-specific antibodies was observed in BALB/c and C57BL/6 mice, which experienced no hypersensitivity reactions. CONCLUSIONS: Mouse strain matters for testing of peanut protein allergens. We identified C3H mice as a suitable strain for the development of a mouse model of peanut-allergic anaphylaxis. Pre-clinical, humoural and cellular responses resembled the responses observed in human patients. The described model can be useful for further studies on peanut allergy and for the development of new therapeutic strategies.
Disease module: DeepOracle (Open Targets). Structures: RDKit from PubChem SMILES. Literature: retrieved by DeepSearch across 234,678,978 indexed works (targeted per-candidate search), resolved on OpenAlex.
DeCure is a research and publication project, not medical advice and not a treatment. "DeCure for X" describes a research goal, not a claim that a cure exists. Backing a cure is a contribution to fund the research — it is not an investment, and confers no yield, royalty, equity or IP ownership. Papers are published open-access by the DeCure.ai DAO.
