Search

Lipid transfer protein (LTP) is a major fruit allergen. It has, however, recently been revealed that the systemic reaction in peach-allergic patients is related not only to LTP (Pru p 3) but also to gibberellin-regulated protein (Pru p 7). We investigated recombinant Pru p 7 (rPru p 7) for its potential use in worldwide standardization for the diagnosis of peach allergy.Natural Pru p 7 (nPru p 7) was purified from peach crude extract using a monoclonal antibody affinity column. Complementary DNA for Pru p 7 was cloned and expressed in Escherichia coli and Pichia pastoris. Serum immunoglobulin (Ig) E in peach-allergic patients was examined by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) using nPru p 7 and rPru p 7 (E. coli product: erPru p 7 and P. pastoris product: prPru p 7).Peach-allergic patients (n=27) were diagnosed and categorized into oral reaction (n=10) or systemic reaction (n=17). The nPru p 7 positivity based on serum IgE levels was 52% in the systemic-reaction group and 0% in the oral-reaction group (P0.05). In the systemic-reaction group, there was no significant difference in reactivity between nPru p 7 and prPru p 7, but the reactivity of erPru p 7 was significantly lower than those of nPru p 7 and prPru p 7 (P0.05).We found that prPru p 7 exhibited reactivity in ELISA comparable to that of nPru p 7 for the diagnosis of peach allergy with systemic reaction.

Background Natural rubber latex allergy is an important health problem. Multiple contacts with latex in childhood are a risk factor. Many aspects of this disease are still unknown, one of which is the clinical outcome of these children. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical and epidemiological features of latex allergy and compliance with latex avoidance instructions in allergic children. Material and methods Seventeen consecutive patients with a history of latex allergy, fruit allergy or chronic urticaria were selected. The patients underwent a skin prick test and determination of specific-IgE to latex at the start and at end of the study (median follow-up: 3 years). At diagnosis, patients with a positive result to one of the tests and a clinical history of latex allergy were considered allergic; patients with a positive test but without a clinical history suggestive of allergy were considered sensitized. These children were given latex avoidance instructions. Results Eleven children (64.7 %) were classified as allergic and 6 (35.3 %) as sensitized. Five patients had undergone latex-free surgery after diagnosis without incident. During follow-up, 11 patients (8 allergic and 3 sensitized) had contact with latex. Contact occurred in the home in 10 children, and all were symptomatic. Specific-IgE levels to latex at the end of the study were significantly higher in patients who had contact with latex during the follow-up period than in those without latex contact. Conclusions Strict compliance with latex avoidance instructions is essential both inside and outside the hospital. Greater emphasis should be placed on reducing latex exposure in the home and school environments, as such contact could maintain positive IgE-antibody levels.