Jodine wrote:
> > You mention 'Secretory IgM'. Please can you give me refs for this? I
>> am not familiar with this type at all, but admit that my immunology
>> knowledge is many years old.
>
>I've seen several references to this, although I didn't think that the
>secretory aspect of the immunoglobulin meant that it was or wasn't present
>in breastmilk, so I didn't pay a lot of attention to the references. I
>thought secretory referred generally to immunoglobulin that is generated in
>bodily secretions - ie, mucous, saliva, etc. So if there is SIgM, it could
>be SIgM produced by the baby, no?

Yes, it could well be.

>
>I have also, btw, also come across the reference to *secretory* IgM
>replacing the function of SIgA in people who are IgA deficient. I can't find
>that reference now, though. :-/
>
>Anyway, if you follow this link you'll get the results of a google search on
>"secretory IgM" and "breast milk"
>
>http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22secretory+igM%22+%22bre
>ast+milk%22+&meta=

Thanks, Jodine, for this URL. Several of the entries here do in fact
relate to IgA-deficient people, and that IgM takes over the role of
IgA in these individuals. It seems the only ones where it is of real
significance is in these special cases and that in normal people, the
sIgM is very minor.

As an aside, I find it fascinating that perfectly normally
functioning people can have such a significant deficiency as IgA and
nature has developed a system to completely compensate for it. Years
ago, when I worked in a blood transfusion service (before kids), one
of the staff was researching IgA-deficiency amongst our healthy blood
donors. It was fascinating seeing the inheritance, etc and these
people had *no* idea they were different to anyone else. They were
just as healthy - healthy enough to be regular blood donors.
>
>
>Clearly the CDC is sure that the infant was producing its own immune
>response to WNV, indicating the presence of WNV in the infant itself.
>
>But stating this as fact without some clear info on *why* isn't helpful,
>imho. We've spent the last 20 years stressing the immune properties of
>breastmilk, and so it's natural, I think, for a lay person (or an IBCLC, or
>a family doctor, or even a pediatrician) to wonder if the antibodies found
>were from the mother via breastmilk - passively acquired, or from the baby's
>own immune system generating a response to an infection.

I agree entirely. I think this is why we started this debate in the
first place! People deserve a brief explanation at least, as to why
this case was considered transmission of *virus* rather than antibody
from the mother's milk.
******************************************************************
Joy Anderson B.Sc. Dip.Ed. Grad.Dip.Med.Tech. IBCLC
Australian Breastfeeding Association counsellor
Perth, Western Australia.   mailto:[log in to unmask]
******************************************************************

             ***********************************************

To temporarily stop your subscription: set lactnet nomail
To start it again: set lactnet mail (or digest)
To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
All commands go to [log in to unmask]

The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(TM)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html