Salivary Immunoglobulin A and its application within a S&C capacity

sjbl61
Nov 2, 2014
3 min read

(The passive drool method for sIgA collection - illustrated by H.Simpson)

When thinking about athletes in general, they are thought as the fittest, strongest and most resilient against upper respiratory tract infections (URTI). Though their resilience against URTI is heightened longitudinally with training, there are troughs in their circadian rhythms which can lead to an "open window" where risk of infection is elevated.

Advances in biological analyses via the assessment of salivary immunoglobulin A (sIgA) levels, has enabled sport scientists to assess the incidence of upper respiratory symptoms (URS) and subsequent risk upon URTI.

sIgA, is an antibody produced by lymphocytes, which is then transported and secreted into the oral cavity via saliva ducts. It is often referred to as the first line of defence in the mucosa against antigens/pathogens responsible for cold causing viruses.

Clearly the ability to predict risk of infection via fluxes in sIgA levels is a potent weapon in the prevention of a depressed immune system. Longitudinally, the collection of samples enables sport scientists to assess the intensity of sessions and there affects upon immuno-markers of fatigue (sIgA concentration). This is of vital importance with regards to overreaching and the fine line between overtraining.

Regarding the literature around sIgA in relation to URS, a handful of short duration studies have presented no relationship (Walsh et al, 2011; Bishop et al, 2009), whereas longitudinal papers have demonstrated a decrease in sIgA resting levels with URS (Cunniffe et al, 2011; Gleeson et al. 2002). The differences between short term and long term study could be related to the increased probability of URS occurrence and a higher statistical power due to the increase.

The general consensus across the field is that URS occurrence peaks before or around competitions (Matthews et al, 2002) with symptoms occurring at a higher rate during high intensity training (Gleeson, 2000), this is of great importance with regards to the periodisation of programs around competition phases.

Although the use of sIgA is a great tool to assess the risk of URS and URTI, the procedure of which the sIgA concentration is achieved should be taken with caution, as the methods within the literature are equivocal. Results can vary drastically based upon collection method, formula used to calculate sIgA concentration, differences in analytical methods and analyses to name a few.

In conclusion the use of monitoring sIgA concentration is a great tool to use within a sport science/strength and conditioning capacity to control overreaching in macro-cycles and occurrence of URS/ URTI. However, caution must be taken when interpreting results of studies and controlling the collection methods in line with manuals when applicable (Salimetrics, 2014).

References:

Walsh NP, Gleeson M, Shephard RJ, et al. Position statement:

part one: immune function and exercise.

Bishop NC, Gleeson M. Acute and chronic effects of

exercise on markers of mucosal immunity.

Gleeson M, McDonald WA, Pyne DB, et al. Immune status

and respiratory illness for elite swimmers during a 12-week

training cycle.

4. Cunniffe B, Griffiths H, Proctor W, Davies B, Baker JS,

Jones KP. Mucosal immunity and illness incidence in elite

rugby union players across a season.

Matthews CE, Ockene IS, Freedson PS, Rosal MC, Merriam PA and Hebert JR.