Almanac A1C

Mast Cell Activation Disorders as System-Level Amplifiers of Metabolic and Inflammatory Stress

Posted

by

dr. Karunia Valeriani Japar

Table of Contents
Keywords: , , , , , ,

Introduction

Mast cells are multifunctional immune cells that play a central role in allergic and anaphylactic reactions, but they also participate broadly in tissue homeostasis, host defense, neuroimmune crosstalk, and vascular regulation across multiple organ systems. In mast cell activation disorders, these cells release excessive or inappropriate quantities of mediators such as histamine, tryptase, prostaglandins, and leukotrienes, leading to episodic or chronic multisystem symptoms that range from flushing and gastrointestinal distress to life-threatening anaphylaxis. Mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), a form of mast cell activation disorder characterized by recurrent, systemic mediator-driven symptoms with supportive biomarker evidence and response to anti-mediator therapy, has seen rising recognition in recent years, yet it’s true prevalence, phenotypic spectrum, and pathobiology remain incompletely defined.

Beyond classical allergy and anaphylaxis, mast cell activation is increasingly implicated as a system-level amplifier of chronic inflammation, autonomic dysregulation, and barrier dysfunction, potentially linking it to gastrointestinal disorders, dysautonomia, chronic pain and fatigue syndromes, and connective tissue abnormalities. Emerging data suggest that mast cell-derived mediators can modulate adipose tissue inflammation, insulin signaling, and gut epithelial integrity, providing a plausible mechanistic bridge between mast cell-derived mediators can modulate adipose tissue inflammation, insulin signaling, and gut epithelial integrity, providing a plausible mechanistic bridge between mast cell activation, metabolic dysregulation, and cardiometabolic risk. This intersection is particularly relevant for preventive and digital health strategies that seek to understand why a subset of individuals develop disproportionate, fluctuating, multi-system symptoms and metabolic deterioration in response to common environmental and psychosocial stressors.

Despite growing clinical awareness, current diagnostic pathways for MCAS are hampered by symptom heterogeneity, fluctuating biomarker profiles, imperfect consensus criteria, and limited standardization of mediator testing and interpretation. Patients frequently experience diagnostic delay, fragmented care across specialties, and empiric treatment trials based on partial or anecdotal response to antihistamines, leukotriene modifiers, or mast cell stabilizers, rather than a structured, data-driven approach. These challenges highlight a critical need for integrative frameworks that combine clinical biochemical, and longitudinal symptom data to better phenotype mast cell activation disorders and guide personalized management.

Advances in digital and artificial intelligence offer new opportunities to address these gaps by enabling high-resolution symptom tracking, passive physiological monitoring, and multimodal data integration at scale. Wearables, patient-reported outcome platforms, and electronic health record data could support development of AI models that identify latent patterns, endotypes and triggers in mast cell-related disease, ultimately informing earlier detection, risk stratification, and adaptive therapy optimization. In the context, the present article aims to synthesize current knowledge of mast cell biology and activation pathways, delineate the clinical and diagnostic landscape of mast cell activation disorders, explore their putative links to metabolism and chronic disease and outline how AI-enabled health technologies might transform research and care in this emerging field.

Mast Cell Biology and Activation Pathways

Development, Phenotype, and Tissue distribution of Mast Cells

Mast cells are tissue-resident immune cells that arise from multipotent CD34+/CD117+ (c-Kit+) hematopoietic progenitors in the bone marrow, which circulate in the blood as immature precursors and then migrate into peripheral tissues where they complete their maturation under the influence of local microenvironmental factors. Unlike most hematopoietic lineages that fully mature in marrow or secondary lymphoid organs, mast cell progenitors enter tissues in an incompletely differentiated state and acquire their terminal phenotype only after prolonged residence in the target tissue, a process critically dependent on stem cell factor (SCF) signaling through its receptor c-Kit. SCF-c-Kit interaction promotes mast cell survival by suppressing apoptosis, drives proliferation and maturation, and enables the accumulation of mature mast cells at strategic body sites [1,2,3,4,5,6].

Recent single-cell transcriptomic and fate-mapping studies in mice and humans have refined our understanding of mast cell ontogeny, revealing that tissue mast cells originate from at least two embryonic waves, yolk-sac-derived erythron-myeloid progenitors and adult bone-marrow hematopoietic stem cells that seed tissues successively and coexist with distinct turnover kinetics. In humans, unbiased analysis of mast cells across 24 organs has identified at least six transcriptionally distinct mast cell clusters, each with tissue-specific enrichment patterns; for example, certain clusters predominate in skin and lung, while others are enriched in gastrointestinal mucosa, lymphoid tissues, or vasculature. This heterogeneity reflects the interplay between shared “core” mast cell identity genes and tissue-specific transcriptional programs shaped by cytokines, hormones, extracellular matrix components, and contact with neighboring cells [3,7,8].

In rodents, two classical mast cell subtypes have been described based on anatomical location and protease expression: connective tissue-type mast cells (CTMCs), which predominate in skin, peritoneal cavity, and serosal surfaces, and mucosal mast cells (MMCs), which are abundant in gut and respiratory epithelia. In the gastrointestinal tract, CTMCs and MMCs coexist but occupy different anatomical niches; MMCs develop postnatally, are partially dependent on microbiome-derived signals, and display continuous turnover form bone-marrow progenitors, whereas CTMCs are seeded during embryogenesis and can be maintained independently of ongoing bone-marrow input for extended periods. In humans, functionally analogous mast cell population differ in their protease repertoire, so called MCT cells express both tryptase and chymase and these subtypes displays tissue-selective distribution patterns that have clinical implications for mediator-driven symptoms in different organ systems [2,7,9].

IgE-Mediated and Non-IgE-Mediated Activation Mechanisms

Mast cell can be activated through multiple pathways. The most well-characterized pathway involves immunoglobulin E (IgE) binding to the high-affinity IgE receptor (FceRI) on the mast cell surface. When allergens or antigens cross-link two or more IgE molecules bound to FceRI, this triggers a cascade of internal signaling events that leads to calcium influx and the rapid release of preformed mediators like histamine and tryptase [10,11,12].

However, mast cells can also be activated without IgE involvement through various non-IgE-mediated pathways. These include direct stimulation by complement proteins (C3A,C5a), neuropeptides (substance P), cytokines (IL-33), bacterial toxins, and direct activation through G-protein-coupled receptors such as MRGPRX2. These non-IgE pathways can produce rapid degranulation or selective release of specific mediators, demonstrating that mast cells respond flexibly to different environmental triggers [13].

Mediator Release: Preformed Granule Contents and De Novo-Synthesized Mediators

When activated, mast cells release two categories of mediators with different timelines. Preformed mediators stored in secretory granules including histamine, tryptase, chymase and proteoglycans are released within seconds to minutes of activation. These immediate mediators cause flushing, itching, bronchoconstriction, and increased vascular permeability [3,14].

Over the following hours, mast cells also synthesize and release de novo mediators, which include lipid mediators and cytokines. Lipid mediators such as prostaglandin D2 (PGD2) and cysteinyl leukotrienes (LTC4, LTD4, LTE4) are potent inflammatory molecules that cause vasodilation, bronchoconstriction, and eosinophil recruitment. In parallel, inflammatory cytokines like TNF-a, IL-4, IL-6, and chemokines are produced, which sustain and amplify the inflammatory response over time [15,16].

Regulatory Signaling Networks and Thresholds of Activation

Mast cell activation is not simply an “on or off” response; rather, it is precisely controlled by a balance between activating and inhibitory signals. When mast cells receive activating signals from FceRI, c-Kit, or their receptors, these signals converge on common intracellular pathways that amplify the response. For example, simultaneous stimulation with stem cell factor (SCF) and antigen–IgE complexes produces much stronger degranulation than either stimulus alone, demonstrating synergistic amplification [6,17,18].

To prevent inappropriate or excessive activation, mast cells express inhibitory receptors such as FcγRIIB, LILRB2, and CD300 family members—that contain inhibitory signalling motifs (ITIMs) in their cytoplasmic regions. When these inhibitory receptors are engaged alongside activating receptors, they recruit phosphatase enzymes (SHP‑1, SHP‑2, SHIP) that suppress the downstream calcium signals required for mediator release. Studies in mice lacking these inhibitory mechanisms show dramatically heightened mast cell sensitivity, confirming that this “brake” system is critical for setting the baseline activation threshold [17,18].

Additional regulatory layers include circadian variations in FcεRI expression and signalling intensity, integrin‑mediated co‑stimulation, and negative feedback through receptor internalization and degradation. Consequently, the threshold for mast cell activation is dynamic and context‑dependent, varying with tissue environment, cytokine milieu, and even time of day. This complexity explains why individuals with mast cell activation syndromes may have wildly fluctuating symptoms in response to seemingly minor triggers and underscores the need for understanding these regulatory networks when designing therapeutics [11,17,18,19].

Clinical Spectrum of Mast Cell Activation Disorders

Mast cell activation disorders represent a heterogeneous group of conditions characterized by inappropriate or excessive release of mast cell-derived mediators, resulting in recurrent multisystem symptoms. According to the 2022 World Health organization (WHO) and International Consensus Classification (ICC), mastocytosis, the prototypical clonal mast cell disease are divided into three main categories: cutaneous mastocytosis (CM), systemic mastocytosis (SM), and mast cell sarcoma (MCS). Cutaneous mastocytosis is predominantly seen in children and presents with skin lesions such as maculopapular cutaneous mastocytosis (urticaria pigmentosa), diffuse cutaneous mastocytosis, or localized mastocytoma; this form typically behaves in a benign fashion and often resolves spontaneously by puberty [20,21,22,23].

Systemic mastocytosis is characterized by extracutaneous mast cell infiltration, most commonly in the bone marrow, and is diagnosed when one major and at least one minor criterion or three minor criteria are met. The major criterion is the presence of multifocal dense masrt cell aggregates (³15 mast cells per cluster) in bone marrow or other extracutaneous organs. Minor criteria include: (1) atypical or spindle-shaped mast cell morphology in >25% of mast cells; (2) detection of an activating KIT mutation at codon 816 (most commonly D816V); (3) aberrant expression of CD25 and/or CD2 and/or CD30 on mast cells; and (4) baseline serum tryptase persistently >20ng/mL. The 2022 classification further subdivides SM into prognostically distinct subtypes: bone marrow mastocytosis (BMM), indolent SM (ISM), smoldering SM (SSM), aggressive SM (ASM), SM with an associated myeloid neoplasm (SM-AMN, previously SM with an associated hematologic neoplasm), and mast cell leukemia (MCL) [20,21,24,25].

Mast Cell Activation Syndrome (MCAS) refers to a clinical entity characterized by episodic, systemic symptoms attributable to mast cell mediator release, objective evidence of mediator elevation during symptomatic episodes (typically a transient rise in serum tryptase of ³20% + 2ng/mL above baseline), and clinical response to therapies targeting mast cell mediators in the absence for mastocytosis or other primary conditions. The diagnosis of MCAS should be considered only after clonal mast cell disorders and secondary causes of mast cell activation have been excluded [25,26].

Hereditary alpha-tryptasemia (HaT) is an autosomal dominant genetic trait caused by increased germline copy numbers of the TPSAB1 gene, which encodes alpha-tryptase. HaT affects approximately 4-6% of the Western population and is now recognized as the most common cause of elevated baseline serum tryptase. Both basal serum tryptase levels and symptom severity display a gene-dose relationship, with higher tryptase and more severe manifestation observed in individuals with TPSAB1 triplication compared to duplication. Clinical features of symptomatic HaT include anaphylaxis (particularly to Hymenoptera stings), gastrointestinal symptoms (irritable bowel syndrome, reflux, nausea), neuropsychiatric manifestations (fatigue, depression, sleep disturbances, cognitive impairment), connective tissue abnormalities (joint hypermobility), dysautonomia and cutaneous symptoms such as flushing, urticaria and prutitus. Importantly, HaT can coexist with mastocytosis or MCAS and may modify disease expression, serving as a risk factor for more severe anaphylactic reactions in affected individuals [23,27].

Primary, Secondary, And Idiopathic MCAS Endotypes

Mast cell activation syndrome can be further subclassified based on underlying etiology into primary, secondary, and idiopathic endotypes [22].

Primary MCAS is diagnosed when clonal mast cells identified by the presence of a somatic KIT mutation (most commonly KIT D816V) and/or aberrant expression of CD25 are detected, but criteria for systemic mastocytosis are not fully met (i.e., only one or two minor criteria are satisfied without skin involvement). This condition, sometimes termed monoclonal mast cell activation syndrome (MMAS), is characterized by a low-burden clonal mast cell population that is abnormally sensitive to activation, producing mediator-driven symptoms without forming the dense mast cell aggregates required for an SM diagnosis. These patients generally have normal or slightly elevated baseline serum tryptase levels and may be clinically indistinguishable from ISM [21,22,25].

Secondary MCAS occurs when mast cell activation is triggered by an identifiable underlying condition or external stimulus. The most common cause is IgE-mediated allergic disease, but secondary MCAS may also result from chronic infections, autoimmune disorders, drug hypersensitivity reactions, physical stimuli, and other inflammatory states. In secondary MCAS, the mast cells themselves are not clonal; rather, they are normal mast cells activated inappropriately or excessively by the underlying pathology. Recognition and treatment of the secondary trigger is essential, as management should be directed at the underlying cause in addition to symptomatic mediator targeted therapy [22,26,27,28].

Idiopathic MCAS is diagnostic when the diagnostic criteria for MCAS are fulfilled but no clonal mast cell population, allergic trigger, or other identifiable cause can be found. This is a diagnosis of exclusion and likely represents a heterogeneous group of patients with diverse and as yet undefined pathophysiologic mechanisms. Recent prospective studies suggest that among patients presenting with suspected MCAS, only a small minority ultimately meet strict diagnostic criteria for idiopathic MCAS, underscoring the importance of rigorous diagnostic evaluation and the high prevalence of symptom overlap with other conditions [22,25,28,29].

Multisystem Symptomatology And Organ Specific Manifestation

Mast cell activation disorders are characterized by episodic, multisystem symptomatology resulting from the release of diverse mast cell mediators into local tissues and the systemic circulation. The clinical presentation is highly variable among individuals and even within the same patient over time, reflecting the broad tissue distribution of mast cells, the multiplicity of mediators released, and the influence of genetic, environmental comorbid factors. To fulfill diagnostic criteria for MCAS, symptoms must be severe, episodic, and involve at least two organ systems [30,31].

Cutaneous manifestations are among the most common and include flushing, pruritus, urticaria, angioedema, and dermographism. Flushing in mast cell disorders is typically episodic, may migrate across the body, and is usually not accompanied by sweating features that help distinguish it from other causes of flushing [31,32].

Cardiovascular symptoms include hypotension, tachycardia, palpitations, presyncope or syncope, chest pain, and blood pressure lability. Postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) is frequently reported in patients with MCAS, with clinical evidence suggesting a shared pathogenesis or significant comorbidity between these two conditions [32].

Gastrointestinal involvement is common given the high density of mast cells in the gut mucosa and includes nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, bloating, diarrhea, constipation, gastroesophageal reflux, dysphagia, and malabsorption. Overlap with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is frequently observed, with mast cell numbers directly proportional to symptom severity in IBS; the released mediators activate enteric nerves and contribute to visceral hypersensitivity [33].

Respiratory symptoms encompass nasal congestion, rhinorrhea, throat tightness, dyspnea, wheezing, and bronchoconstriction. Upper airway angioedema may also occur and, although rare, can be life-threatening [34].

Musculoskeletal symptoms such as arthralgias, myalgias, bone pain, and joint hypermobility may also be present, particularly in patients with systemic mastocytosis or HaT [35,36].

In severe cases, patients may experience life-threatening anaphylaxis characterized by rapid onset multiorgan involvement, profound hypotension, airway compromise, and cardiovascular collapse, requiring immediate administration of intramuscular epinephrine and emergency supportive care. The episodic and unpredictable nature of symptoms, combined with overlap with numerous other conditions, contributes to diagnostic delay and underscores the need for a high index of suspicion and systematic evaluation in patients presenting with recurrent, unexplained multisystem complaints [25,30,31,32].

Diagnostic Criteria and Biomarkers

Consensus Diagnostic Criteria For Mast Cell Activation Syndromes

Mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS) is defined by recurrent, systemic episodes of mast cell–mediator–driven symptoms, objective biochemical evidence of mast cell activation, and response to mediator‑targeted therapy, in the absence of a more appropriate diagnosis. Current international consensus (often referred to as “MCAS Consensus‑1/2”) requires all three of the following: (1) typical, severe, episodic symptoms involving at least two organ systems (e.g. cutaneous, cardiovascular, respiratory, gastrointestinal, neurological); (2) a documented transient rise in a validated mast cell mediator during or shortly after a symptomatic episode compared with the individual’s baseline; and (3) a clinically meaningful improvement with drugs that block mast cell mediators or stabilize mast cells. These criteria are intended to distinguish true MCAS from isolated organ complaints or non‑specific symptom clusters, and to prevent overdiagnosis in patients with overlapping functional or psychosomatic disorders [25,27,31].

For serum tryptase, the most widely accepted biochemical criterion is the “20% + 2” formula: an event‑related tryptase level must exceed the individual’s baseline by at least 20% plus 2 ng/mL to be considered consistent with systemic mast cell activation. Baseline tryptase should be measured at least 24–48 hours after complete resolution of symptoms to avoid contamination by residual post‑event elevation and to evaluate for other mast cell disorders such as systemic mastocytosis or hereditary alpha‑tryptasemia. Recent guidance emphasizes that many patients who self‑identify as having MCAS do not meet these strict criteria when carefully evaluated, and that applying standardized diagnostic algorithms is crucial to harmonize research and clinical practice [20,25,27,31].

Laboratory Biomarkers: Tryptase, Histamine, Prostaglandins, Leukotrienes and Others

Serum tryptase is the cornerstone biomarker for systemic mast cell activation and is particularly useful for detecting anaphylaxis and clonal mast cell disease. Tryptase is released from mast cell granules during activation; levels peak approximately 1–2 hours after onset of symptoms and decline with a half‑life of about 2 hours, usually returning to baseline within 24 hours. In MCAS, documentation of a transient event‑related rise according to the “20% + 2” rule is more informative than a single absolute value, whereas persistently elevated baseline tryptase (>20 ng/mL) raises suspicion for systemic mastocytosis or hereditary alpha‑tryptasemia rather than isolated MCAS [20,27,31,35].

Histamine and its metabolites provide complementary information, especially in patients with predominantly cutaneous or gastrointestinal symptoms. Plasma histamine is technically challenging because of its short half‑life and pre‑analytical instability, so most guidelines favour measurement of urinary methylhistamine (N‑methylhistamine) in 24‑hour collections or timed spot urine obtained during or soon after a flare. Elevated urinary histamine metabolites can support mast cell activation but are less specific than tryptase, as basophils and other cells also contribute to histamine production [27,31].

Prostaglandin D₂ (PGD₂) and its major urinary metabolite 11‑β‑prostaglandin F₂α (11‑β‑PGF₂α) are key lipid mediators generated de novo by activated mast cells and are particularly implicated in flushing, hypotension, and bronchoconstriction. Measurement of urinary 11‑β‑PGF₂α during symptomatic episodes can provide additional evidence of mast cell activation, especially in patients whose tryptase response is blunted or normal. Similarly, cysteinyl leukotrienes (LTC₄, LTD₄, LTE₄) produced via the 5‑lipoxygenase pathway contribute to bronchospasm, gastrointestinal cramping, and vascular leakage; urinary LTE₄ is the most commonly assayed leukotriene metabolite and may be elevated in some MCAS patients. However, prostaglandin and leukotriene assays are more susceptible to dietary, pharmacologic, and comorbidity‑related confounders, so they are generally interpreted as supportive rather than definitive markers [27,31,37].

Additional candidate biomarkers include heparin, chromogranin A, carboxypeptidase, and various cytokines (e.g. IL‑6, TNF‑α), but their diagnostic utility is less well validated and they are not routinely recommended in standard algorithms. Current expert recommendations emphasize a pragmatic, tiered approach: (1) establish a careful clinical history of episodic multisystem symptoms and potential triggers; (2) obtain paired measurements of serum tryptase (acute and baseline) and, when feasible, urinary histamine and eicosanoid metabolites during flares; and (3) integrate biomarker data with clinical response to anti‑mediator therapy to confirm or refute an MCAS diagnosis [25,27,31].

Mast Cell Activation, Metabolism and Chronic Disease

Interactions Between Mast Cells, Adipose Tissue, and Insulin Signaling

Adipose tissue is not merely an inert energy depot but a dynamic endocrine and immune organ that harbors a diverse population of resident immune cells, including mast cells. In obesity, adipose tissue undergoes expansion characterized by adipocyte hypertrophy rather than hyperplasia, a process that promotes local hypoxia, mechanical stress, and adipocyte death, all of which serve as a potent trigger for immune cell recruitment and activation. Mast cells accumulate in visceral adipose tissue of obese individuals and tend to localize preferentially within areas of fibrosis and macrophage infiltration; their numbers have been shown to correlate with markers of insulin resistance and impaired glycemic control. Upon activation, adipose tissue mast cells release histamine, tryptase, TNF-a, IL-6, and other pro-inflammatory mediators that can directly impair insulin signaling in adipocytes and hepatocytes by disrupting the insulin receptor substrate/PI3K/Akt pathway [38,39,40,41,42].

The chronic low-grade inflammation observed in obese adipose tissue sometimes termed “meta-inflammation” is characterized by M1 macrophage polarization and elevated circulating levels of IL-6 and TNF-a, and C-reactive protein, all of which have been implicated in the progression from obesity to insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes. Mast cell-derived proteases such as chymase and tryptase can activate matrix metalloproteinases and promote extracellular matrix remodeling, further amplifying tissue fibrosis and sustaining local inflammation. Furthermore, mast cell stabilization or genetic deficiency in animal models has been shown to reduce adipose tissue inflammation and improve insulin sensitivity, suggesting that mast cells are not merely bystanders but active contributors to metabolic dysfunction [38,39,40,42,43,44].

Mast Cells In Gut Barrier Integrity, Dysbiosis, and Low-Grade Inflammation

Mast cells are abundantly distributed throughout the gastrointestinal mucosa, where they play a central role in regulating epithelial barrier function, ion and water secretion, peristalsis, and host defense against pathogens. In healthy states, mast cells help maintain intestinal homeostasis; however, when chronically activated, they release mediators including tryptase, histamine, TNF-a and IL-6 that disrupt tight junction proteins (claudins, occluding, ZO-1), increase paracellular permeability, and allow translocation of luminal antigens and bacterial products into the systemic circulation. This “leaky gut” phenomenon is increasingly recognized as a driver of systemic low-grade inflammation and has been implicated in a wide range of digestive and extra-digestive diseases, including inflammatory bowel disease, irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), celiac disease, metabolic syndrome, and even neuropsychiatric disorders [45,46,47,48].

Gut dysbiosis, a pathological shift in the composition and function of the intestinal microbiome can trigger mast cell activation through multiple mechanisms, including altered short-chain fatty acid production, increased lipopolysaccharide (LPS) translocation, and direct stimulation of mucosal immune cells. Activated mast cells, in turn, secrete cytokines that recruit additional inflammatory cells and further disrupt epithelial integrity, creating a self-reinforcing cycle of barrier dysfunction, immune activation, and microbial translocation. In patients with IBS, mast cell numbers are increased in colonic mucosa and symptom severity correlates with the proximity of mast cells to enteric nerve endings, implicating mast cell nerve interactions in visceral hypersensitivity and abdominal pain. Stress-induced activation of mast cells via the corticotropin-releasing factor (CRF) pathway has also been demonstrated to increase intestinal permeability, particularly in the follicle-associated epithelium of the ileum, highlighting the neuro-immune axis as an important modulator of gut barrier function [32,45,46,47,49].

Emerging clinical observations have identified a striking overlap between mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), hypermobile Ehlers‑Danlos syndrome (hEDS), and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), a triad that occurs with sufficient frequency to be colloquially termed “ The Trifecta.” In one study of patients with both POTS and hEDS, the prevalence of MCAS was 31%, compared with only 2% in patients with hEDS alone, suggesting a pathophysiologic link between these conditions. Connective tissue provides the structural scaffold for blood vessels, nerves, and immune cells; in hEDS, faulty collagen may impair vascular compliance, predisposing to blood pooling and orthostatic intolerance, while also creating a permissive microenvironment for mast cell hyperreactivity. Mast cell mediators such as histamine, prostaglandins, and leukotrienes can cause vasodilation, increased vascular permeability, and reflex tachycardia, amplifying the hemodynamic instability characteristic of POTS [50,51,52,53].

Fibromyalgia (FMS) and chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS/ME) share considerable symptom overlap with MCAS, including widespread pain, fatigue, cognitive dysfunction (“brain fog”), and sleep disturbances. Recent studies have demonstrated increased mast cell density in the skin and elevated levels of substance P, IL‑6, and TNF‑α in patients with fibromyalgia, supporting the hypothesis that mast cell–mediated neuroinflammation contributes to central sensitization and chronic pain. Thalamic mast cells have been shown to release neuro‑sensitizing molecules, including histamine, IL‑1β, IL‑6, and calcitonin gene–related peptide (CGRP) that can directly stimulate nociceptive neurons or activate microglia, perpetuating a cycle of inflammation and hyperalgesia. Transfer of IgG antibodies from fibromyalgia patients into mice produces fibromyalgia‑like behaviours and increased mast cell activation through the MRGPRX2 receptor pathway, providing compelling evidence for a mast cell–autoimmune axis in FMS pathogenesis. These findings suggest that mast cell stabilizers and anti‑mediator therapies may represent a novel, mechanism‑based treatment approach for fibromyalgia and related chronic pain/fatigue syndromes [54,55,56].

Conceptual: Framework: Mast Cell Activation as A System-Level Amplifier of Metabolic Stress

Taken together, the evidence supports a unifying conceptual framework in which mast cell activation functions as a system-level amplifier of metabolic and inflammatory stress. Mast cells are uniquely positioned at tissue interfaces skin, gut, adipose tissue, perivascular spaces, and brain where they sense and integrate diverse danger signals, including allergens, pathogens, neuropeptides, hormones and metabolic intermediates. When chronically activated by obesity, dysbiosis, psychosocial stress, or genetic predisposition (e.g., hereditary alpha-tryptasemia), mast cells release a broad repertoire of mediators that [38,44,57]:

  • Impair insulin signaling and promote adipose tissue inflammation, contributing to metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes [38,40].
  • Disrupt intestinal barrier integrity and facilitate microbial translocation, fueling systemic low-grade inflammation [45,46].
  • Modulate autonomic function and vascular tone, exacerbating dysautonomia and orthostatic intolerance [50].
  • Sensitive peripheral and central nociceptive pathways, driving chronic pain and fatigue [54].

This framework positions mast cells not as the sole cause of any single disease but as a common downstream effector and amplifier that links diverse upstream triggers, metabolic overload gut dysbiosis, connective tissue instability and neuroimmune dysregulation to overlapping clinical phenotypes. For AI-enabled preventive health platforms, this perspective suggests that longitudinal monitoring of mast cell-related biomarkers (tryptase, histamine metabolites, prostaglandins) and symptoms patterns could help identify individuals at risk for metabolic and inflammatory deterioration before overt disease develops. Moreover, interventions targeting mast cell stabilization, mediator blockade, and upstream triggers (e,g., gut microbiome modulation, stress reduction, dietary modification) may offer a system-level therapeutic strategy that addresses the root causes of multisystem symptomatology rather than treating individual organ manifestations in isolation [32,44,45,54,57].

Digital And AI-Driven Approaches to Mast Cell Disorders

Digital tools and artificial intelligence (AI) are beginning to reshape how mast cell disorders are characterized, monitored, and managed, drawing heavily from advances in asthma, allergy, and other immune‑mediated diseases. Although direct MCAS‑specific evidence remains limited, concepts from allergic respiratory disease, multi‑omics endotyping, and AI‑enabled decision support provide a clear translational roadmap for mast cell conditions [58,59,60,61].

Digital Phenotyping: Symptom Diaries, Wearables, And Patient Reported Outcomes

Digital phenotyping uses continuous or high‑frequency data from smartphones, wearables, and web/mobile platforms to capture disease activity in real‑world settings. In allergy and asthma, mobile apps such as MASK‑air and other “allergy diary” tools collect daily symptom like medication scores, environmental exposures, and quality‑of‑life metrics, functioning as patient‑centered digital biomarkers that correlate with control and treatment response. Wearables and connected devices can track heart rate, heart rate variability (HRV), sleep, physical activity, and sometimes respiratory parameters, while geolocation can be linked to pollen, pollution, and weather data, creating rich multimodal datasets that reflect both triggers and physiological responses. For MCAS, analogous platforms could log flushing, pain, GI symptoms, orthostatic intolerance, and medication use, combined with HRV, blood‑pressure trends, and temperature, enabling high‑resolution mapping of symptom clusters, circadian patterns, and trigger–response relationships over time [32,58,61,62,63].

Machine-Learning Approaches for Pattern Recognition and Endotype Discovery

Machine‑learning (ML) methods are increasingly used in allergy and asthma to move from descriptive “phenotypes” to mechanistic “endotypes.” Unsupervised techniques such as k‑means clustering, hierarchical clustering, and latent class analysis have been applied to large clinical and biomarker datasets to identify distinct inflammatory endotypes (e.g., type‑2 high vs type‑2 low asthma) with different prognosis and treatment response. Supervised models, including random forests, gradient‑boosted trees, and neural networks, have been trained to predict exacerbations, treatment response, or oral food challenge outcomes based on multidimensional features spanning clinical history, biomarkers, and environmental data. In mast cell disorders, ML could be used to cluster patients according to symptom trajectories, biomarker signatures (tryptase dynamics, histamine and eicosanoid metabolites), comorbidities (POTS, hEDS, IBS), and genetic variants (such as TPSAB1 copy number), thereby uncovering latent endotypes that are not visible through classical criteria alone. Such endotypes could guide stratified clinical trials and personalized management strategies, including tailored trigger avoidance, pharmacotherapy, and monitoring intensity [32,59,60,61,64,65].

Integrating Multi-Omics, Microbiome, And Clinical Data in Mast Cell Research

High-throughput “omics” technologies like genomics, transcriptomics, epigenomics, proteomics, metabolomics, and microbiome profiling are transforming endotype research in allergic diseases. Integrated multi-omics studies in asthma have revealed distinct immune-metabolic signatures that differentiate inflammatory endotypes and identify candidate diagnostic biomarkers, using ML models to fuse datasets across these layers. Similar approaches could be applied to mast cell disorders by combining: (1) germline data (e.g., TPSAB1 copy number, KIT and other immune variants); (2) blood and tissue transcriptomes and proteomes reflecting mast cell and broader immune activation; (3) metabolomic profiles capturing lipid mediators and energy‑metabolic shifts; and (4) gut and skin microbiome composition, given the close interaction between mast cells and barrier‑associated microbial communities. ML‑driven integration of these data with longitudinal clinical and digital‑phenotyping streams could reveal mechanistic pathways linking mast cell activation to metabolic dysfunction, dysautonomia, and chronic pain/fatigue, and could yield composite biomarker panels for diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment selection [46,60,65,66,67].

Opportunities And Challenges For AI-Enabled Decision Support in MCAS Care

AI‑driven clinical decision support systems (CDSS) are already being piloted in allergy and immunology to improve diagnostic accuracy, drug‑allergy alerting, and immunotherapy management. In principle, similar CDSS could assist MCAS care by: (1) standardizing application of consensus diagnostic criteria and tryptase “20% + 2” rules; (2) prioritizing differential diagnoses and appropriate work‑up based on structured symptom and biomarker data; (3) flagging high‑risk patients (e.g., recurrent anaphylaxis, significant comorbid dysautonomia) for specialist referral; and (4) generating individualized action plans that adapt to real‑time digital‑phenotyping input. AI‑enhanced telemonitoring platforms could further support remote titration of antihistamines, mast‑cell stabilizers, and adjunctive therapies while tracking safety and effectiveness, similar to digital asthma action‑plan systems that combine symptoms, lung function, and automated feedback [58,59,61,68,69,70].

However, several challenges must be addressed before such systems can be widely adopted in MCAS. First, mast cell disorders are rare and heterogeneous, so assembling sufficiently large, high‑quality, and representative datasets for robust model training is difficult. Second, diagnostic criteria and disease boundaries for MCAS remain contested, raising the risk that ML models will learn and propagate existing misclassification biases. Third, data governance, privacy, and informed‑consent frameworks are critical, especially when integrating genomic and multi‑omics information; federated‑learning approaches that keep data local while sharing model parameters may help mitigate these concerns. Finally, explainability and clinician trust are essential: augmented‑intelligence frameworks emphasize AI as a support tool rather than a replacement for clinical judgment, with transparent models and human‑in‑the‑loop workflows to ensure safety and equitable care. For mast cell disorders, co‑designing digital tools with patients, allergists, autonomic specialists, and data scientists will be key to harnessing AI’s potential while respecting the complexity and lived experience of this patient population [25,59,61,69,71.72].

Therapeutic Strategies and Emerging Interventions

Therapeutic strategies for mast cell disorders combine pharmacologic mediator control with structured lifestyle and trigger management, and can increasingly be supported by data‑driven, personalized care pathways [31].

Current pharmacologic management centers on blocking key mediators and stabilizing mast cells. H1‑antihistamines are first‑line to relieve cutaneous and some neuropsychiatric symptoms, while H2‑antihistamines target gastrointestinal and systemic manifestations; many patients require higher‑than‑standard doses or combination H1/H2 therapy. Add‑on agents include leukotriene receptor antagonists (e.g. montelukast) or 5‑lipoxygenase inhibitors (e.g. zileuton) to reduce leukotriene‑mediated bronchoconstriction and abdominal cramping, and mast cell stabilizers such as oral cromolyn or ketotifen, particularly for refractory gastrointestinal symptoms. Short courses of systemic corticosteroids may be used for severe flares, and intramuscular epinephrine remains essential for anaphylaxis management [31.73.74].

Biologic and targeted small‑molecule therapies are emerging for clonal mast cell disease and severe mediator‑driven symptoms. Anti‑IgE therapy with omalizumab has shown benefit in reducing anaphylaxis frequency and improving quality of life in patients with systemic mastocytosis and difficult‑to‑control MCAS, likely by decreasing free IgE and down‑regulating FcεRI expression on mast cells and basophils. For advanced systemic mastocytosis driven by KIT D816V, highly selective tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as avapritinib have demonstrated deep molecular responses with marked reductions in serum tryptase, bone‑marrow mast cell burden, and symptom scores, and are now approved in many jurisdictions; other KIT‑targeting agents (midostaurin, imatinib in selected mutation profiles) are also used in specific subtypes. Next‑generation mast cell stabilizers and mast‑cell–silencing approaches are under investigation in related conditions such as chronic urticaria and may eventually extend to MCAS [75,76,77,78,79].

Lifestyle, diet, and environmental trigger management are integral to reducing mast cell activation burden and medication load. Patients are typically advised to identify and avoid individual triggers such as heat, temperature swings, alcohol, NSAIDs, opioids, infections, stress, and specific foods or additives, using symptom diaries or digital logs to map patterns. For those with suspected histamine‑mediated symptoms, short‑term trials of a low‑histamine or histamine‑modified diet like emphasizing fresh, minimally processed foods and limiting aged, fermented, or left‑over items, can be used diagnostically and therapeutically, followed by careful reintroduction to prevent unnecessary restriction and nutritional deficiency. Guidelines caution that no universal “MCAS diet” exists and stress tailoring dietary interventions to objective symptom response rather than broad elimination. Environmental measures may include fragrance‑free products, HEPA filtration, temperature control, and careful selection of medications and contrast agents known to be better tolerated in mast cell disease [74].

Personalized, data‑driven treatment algorithms and monitoring strategies can help clinicians adapt therapy to individual disease biology and real‑world variability. Consensus management pathways typically recommend a stepwise escalation: optimized H1/H2 blockade, addition of leukotriene modifiers and cromolyn, then consideration of omalizumab or cytoreductive/targeted therapy in clonal disease, with regular reassessment of symptom control and adverse effects. Digital tools such as app-based symptom logs, medication trackers, and wearables capturing heart rate, blood pressure, and sleep an provide longitudinal datasets to evaluate trigger exposure, treatment response, and risk of decompensation, enabling more precise titration and shared decision‑making. Over time, integrating these patient‑generated data with biomarker trends (tryptase, histamine metabolites, prostaglandins) could support AI‑assisted decision support systems that recommend individualized dosing adjustments, highlight safety concerns, and flag patients needing specialist review, while still keeping clinicians in the loop as final arbiters of care [31,58,69,71,73].

Future Directions

Future directions in mast cell medicine span fundamental biology, diagnostic science, and responsible deployment of AI‑enabled tools across diverse patient populations [80,81].

Priority research questions in mast cell biology and systems immunology include clarifying the developmental origins and tissue‑specific programs of mast cells, dissecting non‑IgE activation pathways (such as MRGPRX2 and neuroimmune crosstalk), and mapping how mast cell mediators interface with metabolic, autonomic, and neuroinflammatory networks. Large‑scale cohort studies and mechanistic trials are needed to define the causal roles of mast cells in common chronic disorders including BS, interstitial cystitis, dysautonomia, chronic pain/fatigue syndromes, and cardiometabolic disease and to identify biomarkers that differentiate pathogenic mast cell activation from epiphenomena. At the therapeutic level, key questions center on how best to “tune” mast cell responses rather than ablate them, including selective silencing approaches, endotype‑specific biologics, and small‑molecule inhibitors that preserve host defence while reducing pathologic mediator release [80,81,82].

Standardizing diagnostic pathways and outcome measures is essential for robust clinical trials in mast cell activation syndromes (MCAS) and systemic mastocytosis. Current consensus requires episodic multisystem symptoms, objective mediator increase using the tryptase “20% + 2” rule, and response to anti‑mediator therapy, but real‑world practice remains heterogeneous, with broad variation in biomarker panels, sampling timing, and interpretation. Future work should refine and validate tiered diagnostic algorithms that integrate clinical scoring systems, tryptase kinetics, additional mediators, and molecular tests (e.g., KIT and TPSAB1 )and harmonize these algorithms across centers. Equally important is developing standardized trial endpoints, combining symptom scores, quality of life instruments, biomarker trajectories, and digital measures of function to allow comparison across interventions and better capture the multisystem nature of mast cell disease [70,81].

Ethical, regulatory, and equity considerations will shape how AI tools are adopted in mast cell medicine. Augmented‑intelligence frameworks in allergy and immunology emphasize that AI models must be transparent, validated, and designed to support, not to replace clinician judgement, with clear accountability for diagnostic and treatment decisions. Because mast cell disorders are under‑recognized and often affect women and individuals with complex, overlapping conditions, unrepresentative training datasets risk encoding and amplifying existing biases, leading to under‑diagnosis or misclassification in already marginalized groups. Regulatory agencies now highlight requirements for diverse training data, subgroup performance reporting, continuous post‑deployment monitoring, and robust data‑privacy safeguards for high‑dimensional information such as genomics and digital phenotyping streams. Involving patients, clinicians, and ethicists in co‑designing AI tools and embedding informed consent, explainability, and mechanisms for human override will be critical to ensure that data-driven advances in mast cell care are safe, equitable, and trustworthy [71].

Conclusion

Mast cell activation emerges as a highly regulated but easily dysbalanced immune process in which diverse triggers, both IgE-mediated and non-IgE-mediated drive the release of potent preformed and de novo mediators that can affect virtually every organ system. When this activation becomes exaggerated, chronic, or dysregulated, it underlies a spectrum of conditions ranging from clonal mastocytosis and hereditary alpha‑tryptasemia to mast cell activation syndromes, presenting with fluctuating multisystem manifestations involving skin, gastrointestinal tract, cardiovascular and autonomic systems, and neuroimmune networks. Recognizing mast cell activation as a systems‑level amplifier rather than a purely allergic phenomenon reframes many “medically unexplained” symptom clusters as potentially converging on shared mast cell–mediated pathways.

From a metabolic and preventive‑medicine perspective, mast cells occupy strategic niches in adipose tissue, gut mucosa, and the vasculature, where their mediators modulate insulin signaling, adipose inflammation, intestinal permeability, dysbiosis, and low‑grade systemic inflammation that drive metabolic syndrome and cardiometabolic risk. Conceptualizing mast cell activation as an amplifier of metabolic stress suggests that early identification and modulation of mast cell activity through trigger management, targeted pharmacotherapy, microbiome‑directed strategies, and lifestyle interventions may help interrupt feed‑forward loops linking obesity, dysautonomia, chronic pain/fatigue, and cardiometabolic disease. This creates a rationale for integrating mast cell–aware assessment into preventive care frameworks, particularly in patients with overlapping gastrointestinal, autonomic, connective‑tissue, and metabolic phenotypes.

AI‑enabled health technologies provide a practical pathway to operationalize this systems view of mast cell disorders. Digital phenotyping via symptom diaries, wearables, and patient‑reported outcomes can capture high‑resolution trajectories of multisystem symptoms, hemodynamics, sleep, and environmental exposures, while multi‑omics and microbiome profiling add mechanistic depth. Machine‑learning models that integrate these data with conventional biomarkers (tryptase dynamics, histamine and eicosanoid metabolites) and genetics  (*KIT,*TPSAB1)could support earlier detection, endotype discovery, individualized trigger mapping, and adaptive treatment algorithms embedded in clinical decision‑support tools. Realizing this vision will require standardized diagnostic pathways, interoperable data infrastructure, rigorous validation, and ethical frameworks that ensure transparency, privacy, and equity so that AI health tech augments, rather than fragments, comprehensive mast cell disorder care.

Reference

  1. Galli SJ, Tsai M. Mast cells: Versatile regulators of inflammation, tissue remodeling, host defense and homeostasis. Journal of Dermatological Science. 2008 Jan;49(1):7–19.
  2. Mast Cell Overview | Thermo Fisher Scientific – US [Internet]. Thermofisher.com. 2025 [cited 2025 Dec 1]. Available from: https://www.thermofisher.com/id/en/home/life-science/cell-analysis/cell-analysis-learning-center/immunology-at-work/granulocyte-cell-overview/mast-cell-overview.html
  3. Moon TC, St Laurent CD, Morris KE, Marcet C, Yoshimura T, Sekar Y, et al. Advances in mast cell biology: new understanding of heterogeneity and function. Mucosal Immunology. 2009 Dec 30;3(2):111–28.
  4. Tsai MJ, Shih LS, George F.J. Newlands, Toshiharu Takeishi, Langley K, Zsebo KM, et al. The rat c-kit ligand, stem cell factor, induces the development of connective tissue-type and mucosal mast cells in vivo. Analysis by anatomical distribution, histochemistry, and protease phenotype. 1991 Jul 1;174(1):125–31.
  5. A Iemura, Tsai M, Ando A, Wershil BK, Galli SJ. The c-kit ligand, stem cell factor, promotes mast cell survival by suppressing apoptosis. The American Journal of Pathology [Internet]. 1994 Feb;144(2):321. Available from: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1887147/
  6. Lennartsson J, Rönnstrand L. Stem Cell Factor Receptor/c-Kit: From Basic Science to Clinical Implications. Physiological Reviews. 2012 Oct;92(4):1619–49.
  7. Tauber M, Basso L, Martin JC, Bostan L, Magalhaes MS, Thierry GR, et al. Landscape of mast cell populations across organs in mice and humans. Journal of Experimental Medicine [Internet]. 2023 Jul 18 [cited 2023 Nov 27];220(10). Available from: https://rupress.org/jem/article/220/10/e20230570/214245
  8. West PW, Bulfone-Paus S. Mast cell tissue heterogeneity and specificity of immune cell recruitment. Frontiers in Immunology. 2022 Jul 29;13.
  9. William, Serhan N, Karrich JJ, Céline El Samrout, Ekren R, Jasper, et al. Tissue Distribution and Phenotype of Human Mast Cells in BRGSF and NSG ‐ SGM3 ‐ IL15 Humanized Mice. Allergy. 2025 Sep 19;80(11):3212–6.
  10. Li Y, Leung PSC, Gershwin ME, Song J. New Mechanistic Advances in FcεRI-Mast Cell-Mediated Allergic Signaling. Clinical Reviews in Allergy & Immunology [Internet]. 2022 Dec 1 [cited 2023 Jan 31];63(3):431–46. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36251242/
  11. Dráber P, Sulimenko V, Dráberová E. Cytoskeleton in Mast Cell Signaling. Frontiers in Immunology. 2012;3.
  12. Kanagy WK, Cédric Cleyrat, Fazel M, Lucero SR, Bruchez MP, Lidke KA, et al. Docking of Syk to FcεRI is enhanced by Lyn but limited in duration by SHIP1. Molecular Biology of the Cell. 2022 Aug 18;33(10).
  13. Yu Y, Blokhuis BR, Garssen J, Redegeld FA. Non-IgE mediated mast cell activation. European Journal of Pharmacology. 2016 May;778:33–43.
  14. He SH, Xie H, He YS. Induction of tryptase and histamine release from human colon mast cells by IgE dependent or independent mechanisms. World Journal of Gastroenterology. 2004;10(3):319.
  15. Final Diagnosis — Case 867 [Internet]. Upmc.edu. 2014. Available from: https://path.upmc.edu/cases/case867/dx.html
  16. Banafea GH, Bakhashab S, Alshaibi HF, Natesan Pushparaj P, Rasool M. The role of human mast cells in allergy and asthma. Bioengineered [Internet]. 2022 Mar 1;13(3):7049–64. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9208518/
  17. Masuda A, Nakamura A, Maeda T, Sakamoto Y, Takai T. Cis binding between inhibitory receptors and MHC class I can regulate mast cell activation. Journal of Experimental Medicine. 2007 Apr 9;204(4):907–20.
  18. Leibson PJ. The regulation of lymphocyte activation by inhibitory receptors. Current Opinion in Immunology. 2004 Jun;16(3):328–36.
  19. Nakao A, Nakamura Y. Time will tell about mast cells: Circadian control of mast cell activation. Allergology International [Internet]. 2022 Oct 1 [cited 2023 Nov 15];71(4):425–31. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1323893022000776#:~:text=Mast cell activation is crucial
  20. Leguit RJ, Wang SA, George TI, Alexandar Tzankov, Orazi A. The international consensus classification of mastocytosis and related entities. Virchows Archiv. 2022 Oct 10;482(1):99–112.
  21. Hamed NA. The 2023 Updated Classification and Diagnostic Criteria of Mastocytosis. Cancer Therapy & Oncology International Journal. 2023 Jul 11;24(4).
  22. Valent P. Mast cell activation syndromes: definition and classification. Allergy [Internet]. 2013 Feb 15;68(4):417–24. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/all.12126
  23. Valent P, Akin C, Hartmann K, Alvarez-Twose I, Brockow K, Hermine O, et al. Updated Diagnostic Criteria and Classification of Mast Cell Disorders: A Consensus Proposal. HemaSphere. 2021 Oct 13;5(11):e646.
  24. Ustun C, Keklik Karadag F, Linden MA, Valent P, Akin C. Systemic Mastocytosis: Current Status and Challenges in 2024. Blood Advances. 2025 Jan 24;
  25. Gulen T. Using the Right Criteria for MCAS. Current Allergy and Asthma Reports [Internet]. 2024;24(2):39–51. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10866766/
  26. MCAS Testing and Diagnosis: Consensus 1 vs. Consensus 2 | The EDS Clinic [Internet]. Eds.clinic. 2024 [cited 2025 Dec 1]. Available from: https://www.eds.clinic/articles/mcas-testing-and-diagnosis-consensus-1-vs-consensus-2
  27. Grainger S. ASCIA Position Paper – Diagnosis and Investigation of Mast Cell Activation Disorders and Syndrome – Australasian Society of Clinical Immunology and Allergy (ASCIA) [Internet]. Allergy.org.au. 2024. Available from: https://www.allergy.org.au/hp/papers/testing-for-mast-cell-activation-disorders-and-syndrome
  28. Mast Cell Activation Syndrome (MCAS) [Internet]. Aaaai.org. 2021. Available from: https://www.aaaai.org/conditions-treatments/related-conditions/mcas
  29. Buttgereit T, Gu S, Carneiro‐Leão L, Gutsche A, Maurer M, Siebenhaar F. Idiopathic mast cell activation syndrome is more often suspected than diagnosed—A prospective real‐life study. Allergy. 2022 Apr 7;77(9):2794–802.
  30. Clinic C. Mast Cell Activation Syndrome (MCAS): Symptoms & Treatment [Internet]. Cleveland Clinic. 2024. Available from: https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/mast-cell-activation-syndrome
  31. Lee E, Picard M. Diagnosis and management of mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS) in Canada: a practical approach. Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology [Internet]. 2025 Nov 21 [cited 2025 Dec 1];21(1). Available from: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12639879/
  32. Öner Özdemir, Gökçe Kasımoğlu, Bak A, Hüseyin Sütlüoğlu, Süreyya Savaşan. Mast cell activation syndrome: An up-to-date review of literature. World Journal of Clinical Pediatrics. 2024 Jun 7;13(2).
  33. Gastrointestinal Symptoms | Mast Cell Action [Internet]. Mastcellaction.org. 2025 [cited 2025 Dec 1]. Available from: https://www.mastcellaction.org/gastrointestinal-symptoms
  34. Walker A. When it’s not just an allergy: Mast Cell Activation Syndrome (MCAS) – Roseway Labs [Internet]. Roseway Labs. 2025 [cited 2025 Dec 1]. Available from: https://rosewaylabs.com/when-its-not-just-an-allergy-mast-cell-activation-syndrome-mcas/
  35. Bubnoff D von, Koch D, Stocker H, Ludwig RJ, Wortmann F, Nikolas von Bubnoff. The clinical features of hereditary alpha-tryptasemia. Deutsches Ärzteblatt international. 2024 Apr 9;
  36. Fernandez J. Mastocytosis and Mast Cell Activation Syndrome [Internet]. MSD Manual Professional Edition. MSD Manuals; 2024 [cited 2025 Dec 1]. Available from: https://www.msdmanuals.com/professional/immunology-allergic-disorders/allergic-autoimmune-and-other-hypersensitivity-disorders/mastocytosis-and-mast-cell-activation-syndrome?ruleredirectid=748autoredirectid%3D20191&media=print
  37. Moon TC, Befus AD, Kulka M. Mast Cell Mediators: Their Differential Release and the Secretory Pathways Involved. Frontiers in Immunology. 2014 Nov 14;5.
  38. Zatterale F, Longo M, Naderi J, Raciti GA, Desiderio A, Miele C, et al. Chronic Adipose Tissue Inflammation Linking Obesity to Insulin Resistance and Type 2 Diabetes. Frontiers in Physiology [Internet]. 2020 Jan 29;10(1607). Available from: https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2019.01607
  39. Wu H, Ballantyne CM. Metabolic inflammation and insulin resistance in obesity. Circulation Research [Internet]. 2020 May 22;126(11):1549–64. Available from: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.119.315896
  40. Lopez-Perez D, Anaïs Redruello-Romero, Jesús Garcia-Rubio, Arana C, Garcia-Escudero LA, Tamayo F, et al. In Patients With Obesity, the Number of Adipose Tissue Mast Cells Is Significantly Lower in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes. Frontiers in Immunology. 2021 May 21;12.
  41. Wensveen FM, Valentić S, Šestan M, Turk Wensveen T, Polić B. The “Big Bang” in obese fat: Events initiating obesity-induced adipose tissue inflammation. European Journal of Immunology. 2015 Aug 19;45(9):2446–56.
  42. Divoux A, Moutel S, Poitou C, Lacasa D, Veyrie N, Aissat A, et al. Mast Cells in Human Adipose Tissue: Link with Morbid Obesity, Inflammatory Status, and Diabetes. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism. 2012 Sep 1;97(9):E1677–85.
  43. Doulberis M, Apostolis Papaefthymiou, Polyzos SA, Boziki M, Kazakos E, Tzitiridou-Chatzopoulou M, et al. Impact of Helicobacter pylori and metabolic syndrome-related mast cell activation on cardiovascular diseases. Frontiers in Gastroenterology. 2024 Mar 4;3.
  44. Zhang J, Shi GP. Mast cells and metabolic syndrome. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) – Molecular Basis of Disease. 2012 Jan;1822(1):14–20.
  45. Albert-Bayo M, Paracuellos I, González-Castro AM, Rodríguez-Urrutia A, Rodríguez-Lagunas MJ, Alonso-Cotoner C, et al. Intestinal Mucosal Mast Cells: Key Modulators of Barrier Function and Homeostasis. Cells [Internet]. 2019 Feb 8;8(2). Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6407111/
  46. Shen Y, Fan N, Ma S, Cheng X, Yang X, Wang G. Gut Microbiota Dysbiosis: Pathogenesis, Diseases, Prevention, and Therapy. MedComm [Internet]. 2025 Apr 18;6(5). Available from: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12006732/
  47. Traina G. Mast Cells in Gut and Brain and Their Potential Role as an Emerging Therapeutic Target for Neural Diseases. Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience. 2019 Jul 30;13.
  48. Martínez C, González-Castro A, Vicario M, Santos, J. Cellular and Molecular Basis of Intestinal Barrier Dysfunction in the Irritable Bowel Syndrome. Gut and Liver [Internet]. 2012 Jul 15 [cited 2020 Apr 9];6(3):305–15. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3404166/
  49. Zhang L, Song J, Bai T, Qian W, Hou XH. Stress induces more serious barrier dysfunction in follicle-associated epithelium than villus epithelium involving mast cells and protease-activated receptor-2. Scientific reports. 2017 Jul 10;7(1)
  50. Dysautonomia, POTS, and the hEDS patient with a long list of symptoms and conditions – [Internet]. Caringmedical.com. 2021. Available from: https://caringmedical.com/prolotherapy-news/dysautomia-ehlers-danlos-joint-hypermobility-connection/
  51. Kohn A, Chang C. The Relationship between Hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome (hEDS), Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome (POTS), and Mast Cell Activation Syndrome (MCAS). Clinical Reviews in Allergy & Immunology. 2019 Jul 2;58(3).
  52. Farley M, Estrada-Mendizabal RJ, Gansert EA, Voelker D, Marks LA, Gonzalez-Estrada A. Prevalence of mast cell activation disorders and hereditary alpha tryptasemia among patients with postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome and Ehlers-Danlos syndrome: A systematic review. Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology [Internet]. 2025 Apr 2;135(1):97–102. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1081120625001589
  53. The EDS MCAS POTS Trifecta [Internet]. Painri.com. 2025. Available from: https://www.painri.com/post/the-eds-mcas-pots-trifecta
  54. Theoharides TC, Tsilioni I, Bawazeer M. Mast Cells, Neuroinflammation and Pain in Fibromyalgia Syndrome. Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience. 2019 Aug 2;13.
  55. Conti P, Gallenga CE, Caraffa A, Ronconi G, Kritas SK. Impact of mast cells in fibromyalgia and low-grade chronic inflammation: Can IL-37 play a role? Dermatologic Therapy [Internet]. 2020 Jan 1;33(1):e13191. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31837249/
  56. Brum E da S, Fialho MFP, Becker G, Nogueira CW, Oliveira SM. Involvement of peripheral mast cells in a fibromyalgia model in mice. European Journal of Pharmacology. 2024 Mar;967:176385.
  57. Doulberis M, Apostolis Papaefthymiou, Polyzos SA, Boziki M, Kazakos E, Tzitiridou-Chatzopoulou M, et al. Impact of Helicobacter pylori and metabolic syndrome-related mast cell activation on cardiovascular diseases. Frontiers in Gastroenterology. 2024 Mar 4;3.
  58. Hai A, Drummond D, Ramakrishnan S, Boven van, Gibson PG, Thomas D. Digitally mapping the asthma journey—from diagnosis to remission. EClinicalMedicine. 2025 May 1;83:103204–4.
  59. Lee Qiyu M, Horsaengchai W, Horsaengchai P, Malik Q. Artificial intelligence in clinical allergy practice: current status, challenges, and future directions. Exploration of Asthma & Allergy. 2025 Sep 25;3.
  60. Mersha TB, Afanador Y, Johansson E, Proper SP, Bernstein JA, Rothenberg ME, et al. Resolving Clinical Phenotypes into Endotypes in Allergy: Molecular and Omics Approaches. Clinical Reviews in Allergy & Immunology. 2020 May 6;60(2):200–19.
  61. Leru PM, Anton VF, Ureche C, Zurac S, Bratu O, Neagoe CD. Mast cell activation syndromes – evaluation of current diagnostic criteria and laboratory tools in clinical practice (Review). Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine [Internet]. 2020 Sep 1 [cited 2020 Nov 11];20(3):2348–51. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7401950/
  62. Bousquet J, Shamji MH, Anto JM, Schünemann HJ, Canonica GW, Marek Jutel, et al. Patient‐centered digital biomarkers for allergic respiratory diseases and asthma: The ARIA‐EAACI approach – ARIA‐EAACI Task Force Report. Allergy. 2023 Apr 12;78(7):1758–76.
  63. Xenofon Aggelidis, Kritikou M, Makris M, Miligkos M, Papapostolou N, Papadopoulos NG, et al. Tele-Monitoring Applications in Respiratory Allergy. Journal of clinical medicine. 2024 Feb 4;13(3):898–8.
  64. Ray A, Das J, Wenzel SE. Determining asthma endotypes and outcomes: Complementing existing clinical practice with modern machine learning. Cell Reports Medicine. 2022 Dec;3(12):100857.
  65. Zhang W, Zhang Y, Li L, Chen R, Shi F. Unraveling heterogeneity and treatment of asthma through integrating multi-omics data. Frontiers in Allergy. 2024 Nov 5;5.
  66. Liu S, Lin Z, Zhou J, You L, Yang Q, Li T, et al. Multiomics and Machine Learning Reveal Distinct Immune-Metabolic Signatures and Diagnostic Biomarkers for Asthma Inflammatory Endotypes. ACS Omega. 2025 Nov 15;10(46):56006–24.
  67. Radzikowska U, Baerenfaller K, Cornejo-Garcia JA, Karaaslan C, Barletta E, Sarac BE, et al. Omics technologies in allergy and asthma research: An EAACI position paper. Allergy [Internet]. 2022 Jun 17 [cited 2022 Jul 25]; Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35713644/
  68. Xenofon Aggelidis, Kritikou M, Makris M, Miligkos M, Papapostolou N, Papadopoulos NG, et al. Tele-Monitoring Applications in Respiratory Allergy. Journal of clinical medicine. 2024 Feb 4;13(3):898–8.
  69. Xiao N, Huang X, Wu Y, Li B, Zang W, Shinwari K, et al. Opportunities and challenges with artificial intelligence in allergy and immunology: a bibliometric study. Frontiers in Medicine. 2025 Apr 9;12.
  70. Valent P, Akin C, Bonadonna P, Hartmann K, Brockow K, Niedoszytko M, et al. Proposed Diagnostic Algorithm for Patients with Suspected Mast Cell Activation Syndrome. The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice. 2019 Apr;7(4):1125-1133.e1.
  71. Khoury P, Srinivasan R, Kakumanu S, Ochoa S, Keswani A, Sparks R, et al. A Framework for Augmented Intelligence in Allergy and Immunology Practice and Research—A Work Group Report of the AAAAI Health Informatics, Technology, and Education Committee. The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice. 2022 May;10(5):1178–88.
  72. Thornber K. Bridging the Gap Between AI Research and Immunology [Internet]. European Medical Journal. EMJ; 2025 [cited 2025 Dec 2]. Available from: https://www.emjreviews.com/allergy-immunology/news/bridging-the-gap-between-ai-research-and-immunology/
  73. Mast cell activation syndrome – Symptoms, diagnosis and treatment | BMJ Best Practice US [Internet]. bestpractice.bmj.com. Available from: https://bestpractice.bmj.com/topics/en-gb/3000310
  74. Treatment – Mastocytosis Society Canada [Internet]. Site Title to go here. 2024 [cited 2025 Dec 2]. Available from: https://mastocytosis.ca/treatment/
  75. Gotlib J, Reiter A, Radia DH, Deininger MW, George TI, Panse J, et al. Efficacy and safety of avapritinib in advanced systemic mastocytosis: interim analysis of the phase 2 PATHFINDER trial. Nature Medicine. 2021 Dec 6;
  76. Metz M, Pavel Kolkhir, Altrichter S, Siebenhaar F, Levi-Schaffer F, Youngblood BA, et al. Mast cell silencing: A novel therapeutic approach for urticaria and other mast cell‐mediated diseases. Allergy. 2023 Aug 22;79(1):37–51.
  77. Dispenza MC, Metcalfe DD, Olivera A. Research advances in mast cell biology and their translation into novel therapies for anaphylaxis. 2023 Mar 1;
  78. Robles DT. Mastocytosis Treatment & Management: Medical Care, Diet, Activity [Internet]. Medscape.com. Medscape; 2025 [cited 2025 Dec 2]. Available from: https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1057932-treatment
  79. Cao M, Gao Y. Mast cell stabilizers: from pathogenic roles to targeting therapies. Frontiers in Immunology. 2024 Aug 1;15.
  80. Worrall WPM, Reber LL. Current and future therapeutics targeting mast cells in disease. Pharmacology & Therapeutics. 2025 May 30;273:108892–2.
  81. Castells M, Giannetti MP, Hamilton MJ, Novak P, Pozdnyakova O, Nicoloro-SantaBarbara J, et al. Mast Cell Activation Syndrome: current understanding and research needs. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. 2024 Jun 1;
  82. Theoharides TC, Tsilioni I, Ren H. Recent advances in our understanding of mast cell activation – or should it be mast cell mediator disorders? Expert Review of Clinical Immunology. 2019 Apr 22;15(6):639–56.