Biology Forums - Study Force

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2562893/Think-weather-getting-Rachel-26-rain-allergic-WATER.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2562893/Think-weather-getting-Rachel-26-rain-allergic-WATER.html)

She can't even take a sip of water, because her throat swells , according to her . the same goes for other liquids, though they are easier to drink (lower water conc.? )

What do yall think?

I call BS on this because our bodies are 70% water. Maybe she is allergic to the chemicals in the water/rain etc but not the H20 molecules themselves.

I don't think that this disorder is an allergy. Allergy is an immune system disorder.
The girl has a skin condition, in which water causes itching.

Also, from the article you provided:
The allergy also means she cannot go for long baths or even drink a cold glass of water as it makes her throat swell up whenever she takes a sip.

Clearly, she doesn't have to avoid every contact with water. That would be impossible for obvious reasons (water is essential for the body, and most foods contain water.)
She only has to avoid prolonged external (skin, throat etc) contact with water.

For some information see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquagenic_pruritus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquagenic_pruritus) or search for "Aquagenic pruritus"

or Aquagenic urticaria

This is a different (although similar) disorder. It seems that Aquagenic pruritus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquagenic_pruritus) doesn't have any visible symptoms, while at Aquagenic urticaria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquagenic_urticaria) there may be visible spots to the skin (see Urticaria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urticaria))

The article says it is Aquagenic Pruritis, but in fact it might actually be Aquagenic urticaria since it is mentioned that water causes "red rashes" to the skin.

You didn't take into fact she cannot drink water properly. Many people with this condition cannot drink liquids containing water normally or they get throat swelling.

This seems like a true allergy to H2O

Could be a psychological issue too. Like deatrix mentioned, most of our body is composed of water, including our saliva.

How can you be allergic to something that comprises at least 50% of your body composition? No allergy to her own saliva or sweat I hope.

I told you, it is not an allergy. And, how is it possible to not drink water? The person would die of dehydration.

It is probably a kind of skin sensitivity rather than allergy.

No but perhaps there isn't enough saliva in her throat to cause noticeable effects.

And maybe the sensitized mast cells only exist in her throat and in her skin.

I don't see how IGE receptors can't react to H2O molecules if they're the right shape and configuration.
People can have IGE reactions to sulfites and they aren't proteins.

Replace ''water'' in the article with ''nuts''. You have 100% allergy there, I don't see how it isn't an allergy.
She reacts to water when its on the skin AND when its ingested.

Same goes for peanuts with peanut allergy sufferers.

It is estimated that a healthy human produces between 0.75 litres to 1.5 litres of saliva daily. That's quite significant.

Water is the only evolutionary drive that is common among all living things. I'm sure it's not the culprit here.


Our brain is quite powerful, I'm sticking to this.

But if you look up ''aquagenic urticaria'' you can see it's a recognized medical condition.

''Wikipedia: list of allergens'' lists water as being an allergen.

I see no reason why water could not be an unfortunate allergen.

This isn't possible...

I want you to make you own conclusions on why this is so silly. Watch this first, then come back and let's talk ;)

http://www.ppdictionary.com/tutorials/delayed_type_4.htm (http://www.ppdictionary.com/tutorials/delayed_type_4.htm)

http://www.ppdictionary.com/tutorials/type_I.htm (http://www.ppdictionary.com/tutorials/type_I.htm)

http://www.ppdictionary.com/tutorials/type_II_hyper.htm (http://www.ppdictionary.com/tutorials/type_II_hyper.htm)

http://www.ppdictionary.com/tutorials/type_III.htm (http://www.ppdictionary.com/tutorials/type_III.htm)

I read all your links and it doesn't answer my question. Why isn't an allergy to H2O possible? Simple as that.

http://www.ppdictionary.com/tutorials/delayed_type_4.htm (http://www.ppdictionary.com/tutorials/delayed_type_4.htm)

Watch that again. You should develop an appreciation as to what happens within our body. Had you actually watched it thoroughly, you would have developed a conclusion as to why it's nonsense.

Anyway, long story short, the person would be hypersensitived at birth, if not during development and therefore would be long dead.

Uh, no, that's wrong. I became allergic to peanuts at 10 years old. Before that I could eat them fine. Then suddenly one day I had a full blown allergic reaction.

You can get allergies suddenly in your lifetime.
You're not always born with them. Not at all.

It is commonly characterized as an allergy, but that doesn't mean that is is truly an allergy. The disorder has nothing to do with the immune system, and that's why it is not an allergy (although it might mistakenly be called an allergy)

If someone has a H2O allergy, then I can't see the reason why our own water is not causing the allergic reaction. In that case, the person would always have an allergic reaction.

And yes, bio_man, it is not possible to be that kind of hypersensitivity, since H2O molecules exists everywhere, within our body and out of our body.

I would say that, it probably isn't the H2O molecule that cases that, but the nature of water liquid. For example, in normal people, water will cause the skin to swollen (water is absorbed by the skin). On the people with the disorder, the skin might be sensitive to water absorption, and some symptoms might be visible. However, these are just some guesses.

In addition, (as Wikipedia says) changes of temperature, or chemicals included in water might also be responsible for the symptoms.

And I remind, that we talk about 2 different disorders there, Aquagenic pruritus and Aquagenic urticaria. I am pretty sure that the woman has Aquagenic urticaria (although the article says otherwise)

I would like to add to that:
The H2O molecule can not possibly cause any allergic reaction. Allergic reactions are caused by large molecules, able to bind to the antigen receptors. These molecules can be proteins, lipids, carbohydrates etc etc etc but NOT H2O. The H2O molecule is too small to be able to bind to the receptors.
(I'm not even taking account the fact that the antigen receptors themselves are always surrounded by H2O molecules)

Some articles say it's treatable with antihistamines. So it can't be due to absorption but something's happening with the Mast Cells here.

What if she only has sensitized mast cells in her skin or in her throat? that'd explain why she doesn't react to her own blood.

Blood is only 83% water. it would seem she only reacts to concentrated water.

It could be.
That could also be true. Because of osmosis, water might cause the reaction, while other waterish liquids (like blood) might not be causing anything.
For example: because of osmosis, water is absorbed by the skin (and by the cells) more easily. Other liquids (like salty water) are not absorbed by the skin.

About that, they probably mean that histamine might be produced after prolonged contact with water, and the histamine might cause some sort of reaction that causes itching.

Anyways, the sure thing is that we don't know for certain what causes the problem.

Thats a big thing you're saying right there because you're saying over 30+ people with this condition are all liars.

Size has nothing to do with binding. It's the shape.

I just say that it is not possible for H2O to make an allergic reaction. That does not mean that the condition is fake. Not all disorders are allergies.

But that doesn't explain why these people experience swelling of the throat whenever they drink liquids.

Even drinking liquids that are basically filtered water, such as orange juice, milk etc (don't contain the chemicals in tap water) cause them this reaction.

The title of the thread is highly misleading, but the article is nevertheless interesting.

it isn't misleading. this woman is reacting to H2O. or water, as you may put it.

She even reacts to filtered water (milk, orange juice etc) so impurities in tap water cannot be the culprit.

What do you mean? Not all disorders are allergies. There might be other mechanisms that causes the swelling that are not disorders of the immune system.

Then you could say that when people ingest milk and get swelling and hives that isn't an allergy.
People reacting to peanuts isn't an allergy etc.

I fail to understand how you can compare completely different disorders just because they happen to have similar symptoms.

Logical fallacy.
You're saying peanut allergies aren't allergies 50% of the time, because the symptoms are the same.

Her symptoms are consistent with H2O binding to the IGE receptors and triggering mast cell degranulation
Y'know, like what happens when you introduce peanuts when you're allergic.

How about you try and give me this new, mysterious mechanism?

I didn't say that ... I'm sorry but i'm unable to follow you. I can't continue the discussion like that.

''Aquagenic pruritus.''
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2411768 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2411768)

''Familial aquagenic urticaria associated with familial lactose intolerance.'
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12271310 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12271310)

''Aquagenic urticaria with extracutaneous manifestations.''
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16119038 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16119038)

Aquagenic urticaria: report of a case.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15317326 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15317326)


Aquagenic urticaria is a very rare form of physical urticaria induced by contact with water. In this case report, we describe a child with a typical form of the disease in whom other types of physical urticaria were ruled out. Clinical manifestations, investigational methodology, and available treatments were reviewed. Treatment with hydroxyzine, 25 mg daily, was successful after a month follow-up in preventing wheals and erythema. However, mild pruritus is still present after contact with water.


Hydroxyzine is an anti-histamine.
This article mentions how the effects of water on the skin is less severe after taking anti-histamines.

This implies that in at least some of these cases, the hives are histamine-mediated.

By the way, mast cells do not exist in the blood, but the gut, respiratory tract (throat and lungs), skin, and bladder lining. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20) ... 123217.htm

An important component of the immune system is the mast cell, a distinct type of immune cell that initiates an early response to combat and clear invading pathogens. Mast cells are located in large numbers in the skin, gut, lung and bladder lining, which are common sites for pathogens to enter and attack the body.






Extracellular fluid (the free fluid that is not contained inside of cells) only constitutes about 20% of the body's water.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_water (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_water)
Antibodies on the mast cells exist on its surface. So the antibodies would not react to the water inside of the cell.
Image

Interstitial Fluid makes up 16% of human body weight and blood plasma 4% of human body weight.


20% is a lot different to suddenly being exposed (be it internally or externally) to water in nearly 100% concentration.

...Your posts are so inaccurate scientifically, that I wonder if there is any point explaining your mistakes.
1) mast cells aren't present only on the skin and digestive system. They are also common in other parts of the body, like blood vessels and connective tissues.
2)
What is your point there? It is 20% of the body's water.. That does not mean that the intracellular substance has only 20% water. Same goes with the blood, and all other percentages you wrote.
Blood is only about 5 lt. If you substract the cells (to take the plasma) it is even less. BUT the composition of water is pretty high.

3) The receptors responsible for binding the antigen are surrounded by water molecules. If water was really an antigen, even a small amount around the receptors would be enough to trigger an allergic reaction.

I told you, the concentration is likely what causes the symptoms (for example because of osmosis). However, that does not prove that it has anything to do with allergic reaction.

Ok, thanks for that. I thought when it said 20% it meant concentration not water by weight. Thanks for clearing that up for me.  ;)

It is ok. I like people suggesting new ideas even if they are wrong, but there should always be a self research and proper judgement first. The problem is that the points you are suggesting are very superficially thought, and doesn't have much scientific base (not only for your last post).
Also, it seems that you are afraid to be proved wrong. You should change that if you want to be a scientist.

But there's a problem.. if it is really true that there's constantly water between cells, that means the mast cells are surrounded by water, is that correct?

Then shouldn't she be dead from a severe entire-body reaction?

Hi again,

What do you know about mast cells?

Mast cells can trigger an allergic response. They contain histamine and they have antibodies on their surface which reacts to a particular molecule. When they do they degranulate and histamine is released.

Why?
Did you read my previous post?

Am I correct in that the antibodies of the mast cells are constantly surrounded by water? (extracellular fluid?)

Yes... in fact, any cell that flows in the bloodstream are in contact with water.

But what about places where the mast cells are the most prelevant, the dermis, lining of the respiratory tract etc? The antigen receptors on mast cells lie on the surface so they cannot react to the water contained in cells.

True or false: dermal, respiratory tract lining mast cell receptors are constantly surrounded by extracellular water?

If True, then why isn't this woman constantly having an allergic reaction?

That's not true; I think you have a misconception here. When they bind to antibodies, that doesn't mean they avoid water :-\

All mast cells are surrounded by water (and generally, almost all of our cells are). But there are differences between water, and other liquids that contain water. One of these differences is osmosis. Another difference might be the temperature. Note that, some of these people have trouble drinking a glass of COLD water, while they can drink tea more easily (tea is usually drunk hot). And if you read wikipedia, it says that hot baths might actually help these people by reducing the pain from future exposures to water.


How it is possible? It is possible because it is not an allergy!

I'm going nuts reading these antics.

GaiaGirl95 -- you really need to update your profile so that I know who I'm arguing with

really bizzare.

how is that possible  :o