Search

Background: Peanut storage proteins (Ara h 1, Ara h 2, and Ara h 3) have been described as the major peanut allergens in children, although not all peanut-sensitized individuals have clinical reactivity after exposure. Objectives: We studied the sensitization profile of peanut-allergic and peanut-tolerant children in a pediatric cohort. Methods: The clinical features and sensitization profile to the peanut storage proteins Ara h 9 and Pru p 3 were compared between peanut-allergic and peanut-tolerant children using component-resolved diagnostics. Results: Thirty-three peanut-sensitized children were included: 22 allergic and 11 tolerant patients. Seventy-two percent of the peanut-allergic children were sensitized to at least one peanut storage protein. The rates of sensitization to Ara h 1, Ara h 2, and Ara h 3 were 63.6, 68.1, and 68.1%, respectively, among the peanut-allergic children and 27.2, 18.1, and 45.4% among the peanut-tolerant children. IgE from the sera of 18% of the peanut-allergic patients recognized Ara h 9, whereas no sensitization to Ara h 9 was detected in the peanut-tolerant children. A total of 59% of the peanut-allergic and 27% of the peanut-tolerant children were sensitized to Pru p 3. Sensitization to Ara h 1 and Ara h 2 was more frequent among the peanut-allergic children (p < 0.05). Although the levels of specific IgE against peanut storage proteins were higher in peanut allergy, there were not statistically significantly different from the levels in peanut tolerance, probably due to the small number of patients included. Conclusions: In our population, the peanut-allergic children were mainly sensitized to peanut storage proteins, and Ara h 2 sensitization allows a more accurate diagnosis of clinical reactivity to peanuts. More than half of the peanut-allergic patients were sensitized to peach Pru p 3, and 50% of them had fruit allergy at the time of the study.

Background Severe allergy to fruits mediated by a 7 kDa allergen belonging to the gibberellin-regulated protein (GRP) family is known to be associated with Cupressaceae pollinosis. Objective To identify and characterize Cupressaceae pollen allergens involved in GRP-related fruit allergy. Methods Pru p 7-related proteins from pollen of Cupressus sempervirens, Juniperus ashei and Cryptomeria japonica were identified using a rabbit anti-Pru p 7 antiserum, purified chromatographically and sequenced by mass spectrometry and bioinformatic comparisons. The C sempervirens protein was produced as a recombinant allergen in Pichia pastoris. IgE antibody binding to pollen GRP proteins was analysed in a peach allergic (n = 54) and a cypress pollen allergic (n = 88) patient population from southern France using ImmunoCAP. Results In each of the three Cupressaceae species studied, a 7 kDa pollen protein related to Pru p 7 was identified and found to comprise an amino acid sequence of 63 residues in length, 92%-98% identical to each other and 67%-68% identical to Pru p 7. The C sempervirens, J ashei and C japonica GRP allergens have been officially recognized by the WHO/IUIS Allergen Nomenclature Sub-Committee and named Cup s 7, Jun a 7 and Cry j 7, respectively. Recombinant Cup s 7 showed IgE antibody binding capacity comparable to that of the purified natural allergen. Among 51 peach allergic subjects sensitized to Pru p 7, substantially higher levels of IgE to Cup s 7 than to Pru p 7 were found. Further, the pollen protein was able to completely outcompete IgE binding to Pru p 7, while the reverse competition effect was modest, consistent with primary sensitization by the pollen allergen. Conclusion and clinical relevance Pru p 7-related pollen allergens from three Cupressaceae species have been characterized and may become useful for the identification of pollinosis patients at risk of developing severe fruit allergy.

Introduction: Component-resolved diagnostics is used to diagnose food allergies. However, few reports have evaluated the severity of peach fruit allergy using peach allergen components, including Pru p 7. Objective: This study aimed to predict peach fruit allergy severity based on the presence of specific IgE (sIgE) antibodies (Abs) to peach allergenic components. Methods: Twenty-seven patients with peach fruit allergy were enrolled and classified into two groups: the local reaction (LR) group, including 12 patients with only oral or throat mucosal symptoms, and the systemic reaction (SR) group, including 15 patients, 10 of whom experienced anaphylaxis. Serum sIgE Abs against crude peach extract – Pru p 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 – and tree pollen were measured. Results: sIgE Ab titers of Pru p 1 and 4 and alder pollen in the LR group were significantly higher than those in the SR group. sIgE against Pru p 7 was significantly higher in the SR group than in the LR group. The frequencies of sIgE Abs against Pru p 1, 4, and 7 in the LR group were 91.7, 66.7, and 16.7%, respectively, while in the SR group these were 80, 20, and 60%. Sensitization to Pru p 2 and 3 was detected but limited in all patients. Conclusions: These findings suggest that sensitization to Pru p 1 and Pru p 4 is associated with local symptoms, and sensitization to Pru p 7 is associated with SR and anaphylaxis. To predict the severity of peach fruit allergy, it is useful to assess sIgE Ab reactions combining Pru p 1, 4, and 7.

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.

Scope The aim was to investigate the potential contribution of a major birch pollen Bet v 1-homologous allergen to birch pollen-associated tomato fruit allergy. Methods and results Two isoforms of a Bet v 1-homologous protein (designated Sola l 4) from tomato fruit were identified by cDNA-cloning and produced as recombinant proteins. Allergen-specific IgE levels to tomato, birch pollen, Bet v 1, and Sola l 4 were determined in birch pollen allergic patients with allergy or tolerance to tomato. Sola l 4 was recognized in 76% of birch/tomato allergic patients, while tomato- and Bet v 1-specific IgE was detectable in 64% and 81% of sera. Almost all patients sensitized to Bet v 1 reacted with Sola l 4. Both Sola l 4 isoforms displayed allergenic potency and IgE-cross-reactivity with Bet v 1 as investigated by competitive ELISA and in vitro mediator release assay. Nevertheless, the reactivity pattern of patients' sera was diverse. Conclusion Sola l 4, a novel pathogenesis related-10 protein, qualifies as major allergen in tomato fruits. Data suggest Sola l 4 as class II allergen. IgE-testing using Sola l 4 showed low clinical specificity, but high sensitivity in tomato allergic patients and will further improve component-resolved allergy diagnosis.

Gibberellin-regulated protein (GRP) is a new allergen in peach allergy, with an amino acid sequence very well conserved through several botanical species. We investigated the allergenicity of GRP in fruit allergies other than peaches and identified the clinical characteristics of fruit allergy patients with GRP sensitization. One hundred consecutive Japanese patients with fruit allergies were enrolled in the present study. To identify the features of GRP sensitization, we selected patients with negative ImmunoCAP results for Bet v 1 homologs and profilin, which are marker allergens for pollen-food allergy syndrome (PFAS), or lipid transfer protein. These patients underwent specific immunoglobulin E measurements by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and skin prick tests (SPT) using purified nPru p 7. Twenty of 100 consecutive patients with fruit allergies had negative ImmunoCAP results for Bet v 1 homologs and profilin. Thirteen (65.0%) of the 20 patients had positive ELISA and/or SPT results using nPru p 7, whereas one of the 20 patients had positive ImmunoCAP results for Pru p 3. In 13 nPru p 7-sensitized patients, the causative foods were peaches (92.3%), apricots (61.5%), oranges (46.2%) and apples (30.8%). Ten patients (76.9%) had multiple causative fruits. Frequent symptoms included facial edema (92.3%) and laryngeal tightness (66.7%). In eight patients (61.5%), exercise or aspirin intake enhanced the allergic reaction onset as cofactors. The prevalence of GRP sensitization was high in Japanese fruit allergy patients except for PFAS patients. In conclusion, GRP-sensitized patients may have allergies to multiple fruits and may show peculiar characteristics such as facial swelling and cofactor dependence.

Banana fruit allergy is well known, but neither immunoglobulin E recognition patterns to purified plant food allergens nor true prevalences of putative banana allergens have been established. This study aimed to characterize β-1,3-glucanase and thaumatin-like protein (TLP) as banana allergens, testing them, together with other plant food allergens, in 51 children with allergic reactions after banana ingestion and both positive specific IgE and skin prick test (SPT) to banana. Banana β-1,3-glucanase and TLP were isolated and characterized. Both banana allergens, together with kiwifruit TLP Act d 2, avocado class I chitinase Pers a 1, palm pollen profilin Pho d 2 and peach fruit lipid transfer protein (LTP) Pru p 3, were tested by in vitro and in vivo assays. Banana β-1,3-glucanase (Mus a 5) was glycosylated, whereas banana TLP (Mus a 4) was not, in contrast with its homologous kiwi allergen Act d 2. Specific IgE to both banana allergens, as well as to peach Pru p 3, was found in over 70% of sera from banana-allergic children, and Mus a 4 and Pru p 3 provoked positive SPT responses in 6 of the 12 tested patients, whereas Mus a 5 in only one of them. Both peptidic epitopes and cross-reactive carbohydrate determinants were involved in the IgE-binding to Mus a 5, whereas cross-reactivity between Mus a 4 and Act d 2 was only based on common IgE protein epitopes. Profilin Pho d 2 elicited a relevant proportion of positive responses on in vitro (41%) and in vivo (58%) tests. Therefore, Mus a 4 and LTP behave as major banana allergens in the study population, and profilin seems to be also a relevant allergen. Mus a 5 is an equivocal allergenic protein, showing high IgE-binding to its attached complex glycan, and low in vivo potency.

Background: Peanut (PN), tree nuts (TN) and fruits are frequent causes of food allergy (FA). Peanut and TN are believed to cause more severe reactions than fruits. However, there are no studies comparing the severity of PN, TN and fruit allergy within one patient group. Methods: Four-hundred and eleven adult patients referred to our tertiary allergy center with suspicion of FA completed a standardized questionnaire. Patients with a typical history of immunoglubulin E (IgE)-mediated allergy, e.g. oropharyngeal symptoms to PN, TN (hazelnut, walnut, cashew nut) or fruit (apple, kiwi, peach, pear and cherry) were recruited (218/411). The objective was to evaluate differences in clinical severity between PN, TN and fruit allergy and how this was reflected by prescription of emergency medication and impact on daily life. Results: Eighty-two percent of the included 218 patients were sensitized to the respective foods. The percentages of severe symptoms (i.e. respiratory or cardiovascular symptoms) in PN, TN and fruit allergic patients were respectively 47%, 39% and 31% (respiratory) and 11%, 5.0% and 3.4% (cardiovascular). Prescription and use of emergency medication (epinephrine, antihistamines and steroids) did not differ among the three groups. The majority of patients with a PN or TN allergy (72%) and fruit allergy (62%) reported that FA influences their daily life considerably. Conclusions: Fruit allergy causes less severe symptoms than TN and especially PN allergy. However, this is not reflected in the prescription or use of emergency medication. This may indicate that physicians are not fully acquainted with the guidelines for prescription of emergency medication. A high impact on daily life was found both in PN, TN and in fruit allergy.

Background Allergy to a plant food can either result from direct sensitization to that food or from primary sensitization to pollen, latex, or another food. Objective We sought to investigate the primary sensitizers in apple allergy across Europe, the individual allergens involved, and whether these differences determine the clinical presentation. Methods Patients (n = 389) with positive case histories and skin prick test responses to fresh apple were selected in the Netherlands, Austria, Italy, and Spain. Skin prick tests and RASTs to a panel of pollens and plant foods were performed, as well as RASTs to Bet v 1 and the apple allergens Mal d 1, 2, 3, and 4. Results In the Netherlands, Austria, and Italy apple allergy is mild (>90% isolated oral symptoms) and related to birch pollinosis and sensitization to Bet v 1 and its apple homologue, Mal d 1, which has an odds ratio of local reactions of 2.85 (95% CI, 1.47-5.55). In Spain apple allergy is severe (>35% systemic reactions) and related to peach allergy and sensitization to Mal d 3 (nonspecific lipid transfer protein), which has an odds ratio of systemic reactions of 7.76 (95% CI, 3.87-15.56). Conclusion The analysis of individual apple allergens in a clinical context has provided insight into the sensitization pathway and into the intrinsic risk an allergen bears to induce mild or severe food allergy. Clinical implications Information on the sensitization pathway is essential to develop preventive strategies in food allergy. The application of individual food allergens with a known intrinsic risk will improve the prognostic value of diagnostic tests.

Background Lipid transfer proteins (LTPs) are clinically relevant plant food panallergens and have been proposed as ideal tools to study true food allergy. Pru p 3, the major peach allergen in the Mediterranean area, is among the best-characterized allergenic members of the LTP family. Its diagnostic value for Rosaceae fruit allergy has been demonstrated both in vivo and in vitro. Objective We sought to locate major IgE-binding epitopes of Pru p 3. Methods A serum pool and individual sera from patients with peach allergy and positive skin prick test results to Pru p 3 were used. Three-dimensional modeling was achieved by using experimentally available structures of Pru p 3 homologues as templates. Theoretical prediction of potential IgE-binding regions was performed by selecting specific residues on the molecular surface displaying prominent electrostatic potential features. Point mutants of Pru p 3 were constructed by standard polymerase chain reaction procedures with the appropriate primers. Mutants were expressed in P pastoris by means of the pPIC 9 vector and purified from the corresponding supernatants by gel-filtration chromatography followed by RP-HPLC. IgE binding by Pru p 3 mutants was tested by immu-nodetection and quantified by ELISA and ELISA inhibition assays. Synthetic peptides (10 mer; 5 amino acids overlapping) covering the full Pru p 3 sequence were used to detect IgE epitopes by 125 I–anti-IgE immunodetection. Results Pru p 3 showed a 3-dimensional structure comprising 4 α-helixes and a nonstructured C-terminal coil (residues 73 to 91). Regions around amino acids in positions 23 to 36, 39 to 44, and 80 to 91, particularly residues R39, T40, and R44, K80 and K91, were predicted as potential antibody recognition sites according to their relevant surface and electrostatic properties. Point mutants K80A and K91A were found to have an IgE-binding capacity similar to that of recombinant Pru p 3, but the triple mutant R39A/T40A/R44A showed a substantial decrease (approximately 5 times) of IgE binding. IgE immu-nodetection of synthetic peptides led to the identification of Pru p 3 sequence regions 11 to 25, 31 to 45, and 71 to 80 as major IgE epitopes. Conclusions Main IgE-binding regions of the Pru p 3 amino acid sequence were identified. The three major ones comprised the end of an α-helix and some residues of the following interhelix loop. These data can help to search for Pru p 3 hypoallergenic forms.

Background: Lipid transfer proteins (LTPs) are major allergens of Rosaceae fruits in the Mediterranean area. IgE-cross-reactivity has been demonstrated in vitro among LTPs from peach, apple, chestnut and Artemisia pollen. The aim of this study was to evaluate the reactivity to LTPs from peach, apple, chestnut and Artemisia pollen by means of skin prick tests (SPTs). Methods: Forty-seven patients allergic to peach (peach group), 20 patients sensitized to Artemisia pollen with no food allergies (Artemisia group), and 12 control subjects were skin tested with fresh peach, as well as with whole extracts and purified LTPs of peach, apple, chestnut and Artemisia pollen. Results: The rates of positive SPTs for peach, apple, chestnut and Artemisia LTPs were, respectively, 91, 77, 23, and 36% in the peach group, and 30, 5, 15 and 40% in the Artemisia group. No response was observed in the control subjects. SPTs with peach LTP strongly correlated with SPTs conducted with fresh peach. In the peach group, the most frequent pattern of reactivity to LTPs was the combination peach-apple (45%), followed by peach-apple-Artemisia-chestnut (21%). Significant correlations were found between peach and apple LTPs, and between Artemisia and chestnut LTPs. Positive SPTs to chestnut LTP were only observed in patients with positive SPTs to Artemisia LTP. All the patients with positive case histories to chestnut reacted to chestnut LTP. Conclusions: LTPs are plant panallergens with different patterns of cross-reactivity. They are major allergens of Rosaceae fruits and seem to be involved in allergic reactions to unrelated foodstuffs such as chestnut, probably through sensitization to the cross-reactive Artemisia LTP. Rosaceae LTPs could be useful tools for in vivo diagnosis of Rosaceae fruit allergy.

Background: Food allergy (FA) is an important health problem for which epidemiologic studies are needed. Objective: We performed an epidemiologic survey in France to determine the prevalence, clinical pictures, allergens, and risk factors of FA. Methods: This study was conducted on 33,110 persons who answered a questionnaire addressed to a representative sample of the French population on a scale of 1:1000 (44,000 subjects aged ≤60 years). One thousand one hundred twenty-nine persons with FA selected during phase 1 received a second questionnaire. Results: The reported prevalence of FA is 3.52%: 3.24% evolutionary FA; 0.12% asymptomatic cases thanks to eviction diets; and 0.17% cured FA. The subjects were characterized by overrepresentation of city dwellers (80% vs 76%), women (63% vs 50%), and health care personnel (11% vs 4%). Fifty-seven percent (vs 17%) presented with atopic diseases (P < .01). FA was often persistent, lasting more than 7 years in 91% of the adults. The most frequent allergens were 14% Rosaceae, 9% vegetables, 8% milk, 8% crustaceans, 5% fruit cross-reacting with latex, 4% egg, 3% tree nuts, and 1% peanut. Sensitization to pollen was significantly correlated with angioedema, asthma, rhinitis, and fruit allergy (P < .01). FA was 4 times more frequent in patients with latex allergy. The main manifestations of FA were atopic dermatitis for subjects under 6 years of age, asthma for subjects between 4 and 6 years of age, and anaphylactic shock in adults over 30 years of age (P < .007). Shocks were correlated with alcohol or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug intake (P < .01 and P < .04, respectively). Conclusion: The prevalence of FA is estimated at 3.24% (range, 3.04% to 3.44%) in France. This study emphasizes the increasing risk of FA in well-developed countries and draws attention to certain FA risk factors, such as the intake of drugs (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, β-blockers, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors) or alcohol, intolerance of latex gloves, and socioprofessional status. (J Allergy Clin Immunol 2001;108:133-40.)

Background: Few studies have evaluated IgE-mediated hypersensitivity to melon with details of clinical reactions confirmed by double-blind, placebo-controlled, food challenges (DBPCFCs). Objective: We sought to investigate clinical features (type and severity of reactions, age at onset, results of skin prick and in vitro tests, and incidence of other allergic diseases and associated food allergies) of acute allergic reactions to melon confirmed by DBPCFCs. Methods: Fifty-three consecutive adult patients complaining of adverse reactions to melon were included in the study. Skin prick tests and detection of specific IgE were performed in all patients with melon, avocado, kiwi, banana, chestnut, latex, pollen, and other offending foods. Patients first underwent an open food challenge, unless they had a convincing history of severe anaphylaxis. Positive open food challenge reactions were subsequently evaluated by DBPCFCs. Results: Actual clinical reactivity was confirmed in 19 (36%) of 53 patients. The most frequent symptom was oral allergy syndrome (n = 14), but two patients experienced life-threatening reactions, including respiratory symptoms and hypotension. The positive predictive value for a skin prick test was 42%, and that for specific IgE measurement was 44%. Forty-five reactions to 15 other foods were confirmed in 18 patients. The most common foods associated with melon allergy were avocado (n = 7), banana (n = 7), kiwi (n = 6), watermelon (n = 6), and peach (n = 5). Onset of melon-induced allergic symptoms occurred from 6 to 45 years (median, 20 years), preceded by seasonal rhinitis, asthma, or both in 88% (15/17). Conclusion: About one third of reported reactions to melon are confirmed by means of DBPCFC, which has been proven to be the most reliable procedure in the diagnosis of clinical fruit allergy. Isolated melon allergy is rare, with most patients either having allergic rhinitis, asthma, or both and associated food allergies. (J Allergy Clin Immunol 2000;106:968-72.)

Background Natural rubber latex (NRL) allergy occurs frequently in children with spina bifida and other children with disorders requiring multiple operations. Also atopic children who have not undergone surgery can be sensitized to NRL, but the outcome of these children has not been studied. Objective To study how NRL-allergic children manage at home and whether their skin prick test (SPT) reactivity, latex RAST or IgE antibody levels to NRL allergens change during the follow-up. Methods Twenty-four NRL-allergic children who had not undergone surgery and eight children with histories of multiple operations were followed up for a mean of 2.8 years. Clinical symptoms were recorded and all children were re-examined with SPT, latex RAST and ELISA for IgE antibodies to prohevein (Hev b 6.01), hevein (Hev b 6.02) and rubber elongation factor (REF, Hev b 1). Results Nineteen of the 24 NRL-allergic children (79%) who had not undergone surgery had occasionally contacts to balloons and other NRL products at home, and 10 of them experienced symptoms ranging from contact urticaria to systemic reactions. Three of the eight NRL-allergic children with a history of multiple operations had contacts to rubber balloons without any symptoms, and five children underwent 1–8 uneventful operations in a latex-free environment. SPT reactivity to NRL allergens, latex-RAST or IgE antibody levels to prohevein or hevein did not change in either group of NRL-allergic children during the follow-up. Conclusions Occurrence of clinical symptoms and no decrease in SPT reactivity or IgE levels to NRL allergens in the course of the present follow-up study imply that more attention should be paid to the protection of NRL-allergic children from rubber contacts in the home environment.

Background: Date fruits are allergenic and standardized extracts are required for diagnosis and therapy of this allergy. Since there are several cultivars of dates, this study was carried out to assess the allergenicity of different cultivars in order to select suitable source material for standardization. Methods: The protein profiles of 18 of the most commonly sold varieties were compared by SDS-PAGE and their relative allergenicity assessed by SPT and IgE-based ELISA and immunoblotting. Thirty-two date fruit-sensitive patients were skin tested with a pooled extract from all the cultivars. Six of the patients with high SPT results (≥3+) who volunteered were further tested with the 18 cultivars and their sera used in ELISA and immunoblotting. Results: Six of the cultivars gave high SPT-positive reactions in ≥4 of patients. Five of these high SPT-reactive cultivars gave high IgE ELISA scores (≥0.58) but individual cultivars varied in their number of IgE immunoblot bands. Cultivar-specific IgE-binding patterns indicated that only certain cultivars bound IgE at molecular weights of ≤14.3 and 27–33 kDa whilst all cultivars bound to a 54–58 kDa doublet. Cultivars that bind to the ≤14.3 and 27–33 kDa bands appeared to form the majority of the high SPT-reactive cultivars. When individual sera of 24 of the 32 SPT-positive patients were used in IgE immunoblots with the pooled cultivar extract, all sera bound IgE at ≤14.3 and 27–33 kDa and about 60% of sera bound to a 54–58 kDa doublet bands. Conclusions: These results indicate that allergenicity of date fruits is a cultivar-specific phenomenon. Sixty to 100% of sera from date fruit-allergic patients bind IgE to three major allergens of ≤14.3, 27–33 and 54–58 kDa. Five of the cultivars that evoke high SPT reactions, high IgE ELISA scores and bind IgE to the major allergens, can be selected for the preparation of ‘in-house’ allergen extracts and for allergen standardization.

Background: Fruit allergy has been attributed to cross-reactive IgE to pollens and has been associated with a particular pollen sensitization. Objective: The aim of the study was to evaluate sensitization to several taxonomically unrelated pollens in peach- and pollen-allergic patients and to study cross-reactivity between them. Methods: One hundred sixty-five patients were evaluated: 70 peach- allergic patients together with 95 pollen-allergic patients (control group). Pollen skin tests in duplicate were performed to 5 grasses, 8 trees, and 7 weeds. Cross-reactivity between peach and taxonomically diverse pollens was determined by radioallergosorbent inhibition and Western blot inhibition tests. Experiments were also carried out after preadsorption of the sera with purified natural profilin. Results: The skin test results revealed that peach-allergic patients frequently reacted to most pollens—grasses, weeds, and trees—even when some of these are not found in our geographic area. There was a statistically significant increase in sensitization frequency to most trees and weeds, with a statistically higher occurrence of asthma (odds ratio 2.98, 95% confidence interval 1.46-6.09). Inhibition test results provided evidence that taxonomically unrelated grasses, weeds, and trees produced various and substantial degrees of inhibition in specific IgE to peach and that the peach extract elicited strong inhibitions to those pollens. Profilin was found to be a relevant cross-reactive antigen in these patients. Conclusion: The results of this study provide evidence that peach allergy is linked to sensitization to several taxonomically unrelated pollens. This is attributable to the ubiquitous nature of the IgE binding determinants—such as profilins—between peach and taxonomically unrelated pollens. (J Allergy Clin Immunol 1999;104:688-94.)

Background It is not uncommon that patients allergic to fruits such as apple, pear, and peach, refer adverse reactions after the ingestion of the whole fruit, but subsequently tolerate the pulp. Objective This study aimed to compare the allergenicity of peels and pulps of apple, peach, and pear in 33 patients allergic to these fruits. Methods Clinical reactivity to the ingestion of whole fruit (peel + pulp) and pulp was established by medical history. Peels and pulps were tested separately in skin prick tests (SPTs), histamine release tests (HRTs) and RASTs. Cross-allergenicity between peel and pulp of apple and peach was studied by RAST inhibition. Results Adverse reactions appeared more frequently and were more severe when the whole fruit was eaten. More than 40% of patients allergic to apple and pear tolerated the ingestion of the pulp of these fruits, and reactions were only elicited by the intake of the whole fruit. Peels induced higher SPTs, HRTs and RASTs than pulps. An important cross-allergenicity was found between the peel and pulp of apple and peach, although the amount of the shared allergenic epitopes seemed to be higher in peels. Conclusion Our results suggest that peels of Rosaceae fruits such as apple, peach, and pear, have a higher allergenicity than pulps, which is clinically relevant. This aspect should be considered in the evaluation of patients allergic to Rosaceae fruits, and in the production of diagnostic materials.

Background: Allergy to fresh fruits and vegetables is mostly observed in subjects with pollinosis, especially from birch, because of cross-reacting allergens in vegetable foods and pollens. However, allergic reactions to fruits, specifically Rosaceae fruits, have been reported in subjects without pollinosis. Objective: This study evaluated the pattern of IgE reactivity, identifying the allergen responsible in 2 groups of patients with oral allergy syndrome to peach with or without birch pollinosis. Methods: The allergenic components of peach were detected by SDS-PAGE and immunoblotting. The major peach allergen was purified by HPLC with a cation-exchange column followed by gel filtration chromatography. Its IgE-binding capacity and its homology with the protein of the crude extract were demonstrated by immunoblotting inhibition techniques. To better characterize this allergen, periodic acid-Schiff stain and isoelectrofocusing were used. The amino acid sequencing was done with a gas-phase sequencer. Results: SDS-PAGE and immunoblotting of the 15 patients allergic to peach, 8 without and 7 with birch pollinosis, showed that they all recognized a protein with a molecular weight of 9 kd. This was the only allergen recognized by patients not sensitized to pollen, whereas the birch pollen–sensitive patients had IgE binding to other allergenic proteins at higher molecular weights. The purified 9-kd protein retained its IgE-binding capacity, was negative to periodic acid-Schiff stain, and had an isoelectric point value of greater than 9. A search in the Swiss Prot Bank showed this was a lipid transfer protein, belonging to a group of molecules involved in the defensive system of plants. Conclusions: The major allergen of peach is a 9-kd protein belonging to the group of lipid transfer proteins. This is the only allergen recognized by patients allergic to peach but not sensitized to birch pollen. (J Allergy Clin Immunol 1999;103:520-6.)

Background: Allergy to apple and Prunus fruits is frequently associated with birch pollinosis, with the principal cross-reacting allergens involved being members of the Bet v 1 family. However, a major 13-kd component, nonimmunologically related to Bet v 1, has been implicated as allergen in patients allergic to Prunoideae fruit but not to birch pollen. Objective: We sought to isolate and characterize the 13-kd allergen present in apple and peach. Methods: Sera from patients allergic to both fruits were selected on the basis of clinical symptoms, skin prick tests responses, and specific IgE levels. Allergens were purified by reverse-phase HPLC and characterized by N-terminal amino acid sequencing, MALDI analysis, specific IgE immunodetection, and immunoblot inhibition assays. Results: A 13-kd protein band was recognized in crude apple and peach extracts by 9 of 10 and 10 of 10 sera from patients allergic to fruit, respectively. The isolation and characterization of the corresponding allergens allowed their identification as lipid-transfer proteins, with a molecular mass of 9058 d for the apple protein and 9138 d for the peach protein. Both purified allergens were recognized by sera from patients allergic to fruit and fully inhibited the IgE binding by the 13-kd component present in the 2 crude fruit extracts. Conclusion: Lipid-transfer proteins are relevant apple and peach allergens and, considering their ubiquitous distribution in tissues of many plant species, could be a novel type of panallergen of fruits and vegetables. (J Allergy Clin Immunol 1999;103:514-9.)

The purpose of this study was to investigate the prevalence of latex allergy in fruit-allergic patients, and to assess its clinical significance. Fifty-seven fruit-allergic patients and 50 non-fruit-allergic atopic patient controls were studied. All patients were questioned about conventional immediate symptoms after contact with latex products. Patients also underwent skin prick testing and determination of specific serum IgE to latex, as well as a screening test for environmental allergens. Immunologic latex sensitization occurred in 49/57 (85.9%) fruit-allergic patients, who showed a positive STP and/or CAP to latex, but in only two controls (P < 0.001). Six out of 57 (10.5%) fruit-allergic patients suffered from clinically relevant latex allergy. Symptoms included contact urticaria, angioedema, conjunctivitis, generalized urticaria, and moderate anaphylactic reactions. No control reported symptoms with latex products (P = 0.052). In all patients, clinical symptoms to fruits preceded a history of latex allergy. The fruits most associated were melon, peach, and banana. From our data, we conclude that there is a potential for allergic reactions to latex in patients with allergy to fruit. All patients with fruit allergy should be screened for individual risk of latex allergy.

Allergy to banana fruit appears to have become an important cause of fruit allergy in Europe. Among five allergens that have been found, beta-1,3-glucanase denoted as Mus a 5 was identified as a candidate allergen for the component-resolved allergy diagnosis of banana allergy. Because of the variations in protein levels in banana fruit, in this study Mus a 5 was produced as a fusion protein with glutathione-S-transferase in Escherichia coli. The recombinant Mus a 5 was purified under native conditions by a combination of affinity, ion-exchange, and reversed phase chromatography. N-terminal sequence was confirmed by Edman degradation and 55 % of the primary structure was identified by mass fingerprint, while the secondary structure was assessed by circular dichroism spectroscopy. IgG reactivity of recombinant protein was shown in 2-D immunoblot with anti-Mus a 5 antibodies, while IgG and IgE binding to natural Mus a 5 was inhibited with the recombinant Mus a 5 in immunoblot inhibition test. IgE reactivity of recombinant Mus a 5 was shown in ELISA within a group of ten persons sensitized to banana fruit. Recombinant Mus a 5 is a novel reagent suitable for the component-resolved allergy diagnosis of banana allergy.

A method based on ion-exchange column chromatography to enhance the protein content of fruit allergenic extracts was found to help make the subsequent SDS-PAGE immunoblotting assays possible; otherwise, they were difficult to achieve due to the high carbohydrate content. Fractionated extracts of apple, pear, and peach (peel and pulp) were obtained by anion-exchange chromatography (Q-SepharoseTM column), providing clear electrophoretic patterns which allowed IgE detection by enzymatic assays of the transferred membranes. This chromatographic method produced in one single step an enriched extract directly from the standard crude aqueous one, with an increment in the protein content of more than sixfold, on average; thus, it proved to be more suitable than the usual chemical fractionation procedures.

The relevance of contact allergy to plant-related food has recently emerged. Oral allergy syndrome is one of the most characteristic symptoms of fruit allergy, although it also causes systemic reactions. Plant-food allergy is increasing at the same time as pollen allergy, and fruit-induced allergic contact urticaria could be rising as well. Objectives The present study was carried out in order to investigate whether one particular primary melon-peel allergen is responsible for contact urticaria. Methods Fourteen patients presenting with contact urticaria after touching melon peel were evaluated. A melon-peel extract was prepared and analysed by immunoblotting using the patients’ sera. Molecular characterization of IgE-binding bands was performed using mass spectrometry. Melon-peel lipid transfer protein (LTP) was purified. Inhibition studies and contact challenge with the protein were performed to confirm IgE reactivity to the purified allergen. Results An IgE-binding band of ~8–9 kDa was observed in an immunoblotting assay with all the patients’ sera and was identified as an LTP. The melon-peel LTP was purified in two chromatography steps. Inhibition studies confirmed LTP as a major allergen in patients with melon-peel contact urticaria. Contact challenge with melon-peel LTP was performed in five patients, all of whom had positive results, exhibiting itchy erythema and hives in the area of contact. Conclusions This study confirmed our previous findings that melon-peel LTP is a major allergen and is responsible for contact allergy. This knowledge may be used to improve both diagnosis and treatment of patients allergic to melon.

The study of cross-reactivity in allergy is key to both understanding. the allergic response of many patients and providing them with a rational treatment In the present study, protein microarrays and a co-sensitization graph approach were used in conjunction with an allergen microarray immunoassay. This enabled us to include a wide number of proteins and a large number of patients, and to study sensitization profiles among members of the LTP family. Fourteen LTPs from the most frequent plant food-induced allergies in the geographical area studied were printed into a microarray specifically designed for this research. 212 patients with fruit allergy and 117 food-tolerant pollen allergic subjects were recruited from seven regions of Spain with different pollen profiles, and their sera were tested with allergen microarray. This approach has proven itself to be a good tool to study cross-reactivity between members of LTP family, and could become a useful strategy to analyze other families of allergens. Yes

Multicenter Study; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; Cross-reactivity of plant foods is an important phenomenon in allergy, with geographical variations with respect to the number and prevalence of the allergens involved in this process, whose complexity requires detailed studies. We have addressed the role of thaumatin-like proteins (TLPs) in cross-reactivity between fruit and pollen allergies. A representative panel of 16 purified TLPs was printed onto an allergen microarray. The proteins selected belonged to the sources most frequently associated with peach allergy in representative regions of Spain. Sera from two groups of well characterized patients, one with allergy to Rosaceae fruit (FAG) and another against pollens but tolerant to food-plant allergens (PAG), were obtained from seven geographical areas with different environmental pollen profiles. Cross-reactivity between members of this family was demonstrated by inhibition assays. Only 6 out of 16 purified TLPs showed noticeable allergenic activity in the studied populations. Pru p 2.0201, the peach TLP (41%), chestnut TLP (24%) and plane pollen TLP (22%) proved to be allergens of probable relevance to fruit allergy, being mainly associated with pollen sensitization, and strongly linked to specific geographical areas such as Barcelona, Bilbao, the Canary Islands and Madrid. The patients exhibited >50% positive response to Pru p 2.0201 and to chestnut TLP in these specific areas. Therefore, their recognition patterns were associated with the geographical area, suggesting a role for pollen in the sensitization of these allergens. Finally, the co-sensitizations of patients considering pairs of TLP allergens were analyzed by using the co-sensitization graph associated with an allergen microarray immunoassay. Our data indicate that TLPs are significant allergens in plant food allergy and should be considered when diagnosing and treating pollen-food allergy. Yes

Objective Up to 2 out of 3 spina bifida (sb) patients with natural rubber latex (NRL) antibodies (ab) have crossreacting IgE-ab against tropical fruit, due to structural homologies between several NRL antigens and allergenic fruit proteins. It is essential to investigate whether the patients were first sensitized against NRL or fruit, to give recommendations for an evidence-based prophylaxis. Patients and methods We investigated sera of 96 sb patients for specific IgE ab against NRL, banana and kiwi as examples for crossreacting fruit by FEIA (ImmunoCAP System, Phadia). These tests were repeated up to 3 times (mean after 2 years, maximum after 7 years). Results In the first testing only 2 of 50 NRL-IgE negative patients (4%) had ab against banana or kiwi. 4 of the 46 NRL-IgE positive patients (8%) showed ab against banana (2) or kiwi (2), 3 (7%) against both fruit. Symptoms of fruit allergy were presented by 3 patients, all symptomatic patients had high levels of specific fruit-ab. In the follow-up study 2 patients with low sensitization against NRL lost their NRL ab and their fruit ab, another 2 only the fruit ab, whereas 4 NRL-sensitized patients newly developed ab against banana and 1 against kiwi. Only 2 patients developed ab against fruit without being sensitized against NRL. 7 out of 10 patients with banana and kiwi ab were atopics. Conclusions In most cases the sensitization against fruit follows the NRL sensitization. There is no need to recommend sb patients without NRL sensitization to primarily avoid tropical fruit.

The purpose of this paper is to review and discuss studies on molecular diagnosis in fruit and vegetable allergy.Celeriac, carrot and tomato are the most prevalent allergenic vegetables, whereas fruit allergy is mainly induced by apple, peach and kiwi. Component-resolved molecular diagnosis has been recently applied in two well-defined patient groups with kiwifruit and celeriac allergy, respectively. In kiwifruit allergy Act d 1 and Act d 3 were identified as potential marker allergens for severe symptoms. For celeriac allergy, however, such markers are still missing. In both studies component-resolved molecular diagnosis approach improved in particular sensitivity compared to extract-based diagnostic test assays.Food and vegetable allergy can be acquired both via a direct sensitization over the gastrointestinal tract and via a primary sensitization to pollen or latex. The diagnosis of fruit and vegetable allergy in birch pollen-sensitized patients should not be excluded on a negative IgE testing to extracts. Bet v 1-related allergens are often under-represented in extracts. Few recombinant allergens derived from fruits and vegetables are nowadays commercially available and facilitate diagnosis of fruit and vegetable allergies.

References 1. YASSIN MS, LIERL MB, FISHER TJ, O'BRIEN K, CROSS J, STEINMETZ C. Latex allergy in hospital employees. Ann Allergy 1994; 72:245±249. 2. SLATER JE, CHHABRA SK. Latex antigens. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1992;89:673±678. 3. FLORIDO JF, SAENZ B, GONZAÂ LEZ P, VALLECILLO A, PASCUAL C, MARTIÂN M. SensibilizacioÂn a chirimoya y otras frutas en el So Ândrome de Alergia Oral. Rev Esp Alergol Inmunol Clin 1994;9 Suppl 1:91. 4. GONZALO MA, MONEO I, VENTAS P, POLO F, GARCIÂA JM. IgE-mediated hypersensitivity to custard-apple. Allergy 1997;52:597. 5. WADEE AA, BOTING LA, RABSON AR. Fruit allergy: demonstration of IgE antibodies to a 30 kd protein present in several fruits. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1990;85:801±807. 6. Do ÂAZ-PERALES A, COLLADA C, BLANCO C, et al. Class I chitinases with hevein-like domain, but not class II enzymes, are relevant chestnut and avocado allergens. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1998;102:127±133.

High fruit intakes are associated with significant health benefits but fruit allergy sufferers may be discouraged from eating fruit due to the symptoms they experience. Knowledge about allergens involved in fruit allergy and the frequent cross-reactions to other allergens is essential to (a) design the best strategy for fruit allergy testing (b) prescribe optimal avoidance diets, and (c) design technological solutions for development of hypoallergenic fruits. The objective of this review was to investigate whether some characteristic disease entities could be identified in Europe for allergy to Rosaceae fruits. Five allergy patterns were found involving the allergen families PR-10, LTP, and profilin. In the Western Mediterranean area allergies to Rosaceae fruits are caused by monosensitization to LTP, monosensitization to profilin, or co-sensitization to both these allergens. On the contrary, monosensitization to PR-10 and, to a lesser degree, co-sensitization to profilin and PR-10 is dominant in Northern and Central Europe. LTP sensitization is present both in pollinosis and non-pollinosis patients and is associated with peach allergy in particular. The disease pattern for patients sensitized to profilin is characterized by several concomitant allergies including grass and other pollens, Rosaceae and non-Rosaceae fruits. Finally, PR-10 sensitization is primarily associated to concomitant birch pollen and apple allergy.

Papain is a proteolytic enzyme which is widely used in food industry, pharmaceuticals, and cosmetics. Occupational and non-occupational papain allergies have previously been documented; however, there are limited publications about papain allergy with its relative fruit allergy. Here, we present a case of occupational, IgE-mediated papain allergy with kiwi fruit and fig fruit allergy. A 53-year-old man suffered from rhinitis for several years, with the onset of his symptoms coinciding with the time he started to work at a sausage processing plant where papain is often used as a meat tenderizer. He began to experience symptoms of chest tightness, shortness of breath and wheezing shortly after starting work 5 years ago. Furthermore, he experienced several episodes of oral itching, and tongue and oropharyngeal angioedema after injestion of kiwi fruit and fig fruit. The patient had a lifelong history of allergic conjunctivitis, allergic rhinitis, and childhood asthma. Specific IgE was positive to kiwi fruit, papain and chymopapain (2.95 kUA/L, >100 kUA/L, and 95.0 kUA/L, respectively). Similar bands at 10-15 kDa in blotting with papain and kiwi fruit extracts were found. This patient showed a potential association between papain allergy and sensitization to kiwi fruit. We also reviewed 13 patients with papain allergy published in the literature, with 85% (11/13) of the patients sensitized through the respiratory tract, and 40% (4/11) having atopy. Further studies should focus on the determination of cross-reactive allergens between papain and its fruit relatives, and the prevalence of food allergy in patients with papain allergy should be investigated in a relatively large cohort.

Background Lipid transfer proteins (LTPs) are relevant allergens in certain plants. The role of the LTP of Hevea brasiliensis in the latex-fruit syndrome is widely unknown. Objective To study IgE reactivity with recombinant Hevea LTP in sera of fruit-allergic adults with and without natural rubber latex (NRL) allergy. Methods An LTP-specific complementary DNA of H brasiliensis leaves was amplified, subcloned into the pMAL expression system, and analyzed. The recombinant protein was coupled to ImmunoCAP, and the IgE-binding properties were studied in sera of 10 NRL-allergic patients without symptoms to fruit and 48 atopic patients with fruit allergy. Eleven of these 48 patients were also allergic to NRL, 14 displayed sensitization to NRL without symptoms on NRL exposure so far, and 23 had neither symptoms nor IgE antibodies to NRL. Results After expression in Escherichia coli , a soluble maltose-binding protein-rHev b 12 fusion protein was isolated and coupled to ImmunoCAP to determine rHev b 12 specific IgE reactivity. rHev b 12 specific IgE binding was found in 3 fruit-allergic patients with NRL sensitization (0.68, 0.88, and 0.96 kU/L) and in 3 fruit-allergic patients without NRL sensitization (1.58, 2.25, and 2.27 kU/L). The remaining 52 serum samples and all maltose-binding protein control test results were negative ( Conclusions In these patients, rHev b 12 specific IgE reactivity seems to result from common cross-reactive epitopes with some of the fruit LTPs tested and underscores only an involvement in co-recognition. No clinical relevance of IgE binding to the LTP of H brasiliensis in association with NRL allergy was detected.

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.

Background The latex-fruit syndrome is a well-defined disorder whose genetic background has not been elucidated. Objective To study the genetic basis of the latex-fruit syndrome. Methods In a case-control study, we have investigated a carefully selected group of patients allergic to latex, searching for association between latex-fruit allergy and HLA class I and II genes, HLA-DR functional groups, and markers IL4-R1 and FceRI-βca . Results Seventy-eight patients allergic to latex without spina bifida, 33% of them also allergic to fruits, were included in our protocol. Skin prick test results with both a commercial latex extract and purified hevein were significantly greater in patients allergic to latex and fruit than in patients allergic to latex and not fruit. A cutoff point of >7 mm for commercial latex skin prick test diagnosed latex-fruit allergy with a sensitivity of 66.7% (95% CI, 41.0-86.6) and a specificity of 83.3% (95% CI, 68.6-93.0) in our series of patients. No significant differences were found regarding HLA class I, IL4-R1 , or FceRI-βca allele distributions. However, comparison of HLA class II allelic frequencies between patients allergic to latex and fruit and patients allergic to latex and not fruit showed significant associations of latex-fruit allergy with DQB1∗0201 (corrected P value, .001; odds ratio, 7.3; 95% CI, 2.6-20.0), as well as with HLA-DR functional group E (corrected P value, .028; odds ratio, 16.0; 95% CI, 1.9-134.1). When comparing allelic distribution among different subgroups of patients allergic to latex, additional significant associations of latex-fruit allergy with DRB1∗0301 and ∗0901, and of latex and not fruit allergy with DQB1∗0202, DRB1∗0701 and ∗1101, were demonstrated. Conclusions Latex-fruit allergy is associated with HLA-DQB1∗0201, DRB1∗0301, and ∗0901, as well as with HLA-DR functional group E, whereas latex–not-fruit allergy is associated with DQB1∗0202, and with both DRB1∗0701 and ∗1101 alleles.

Summary Background Ornamental Ficus benjamina (FB) has been recognized as a new indoor allergen. Little is known about the prevalence in moderately exposed subjects and the proposed association with fruit and Hevea latex hypersensitivity. Objective To study the prevalence of FB sensitization and the relationship with Hevea latex allergy, to identify cross-reacting fruits, and to characterize the responsible allergens. Methods A skin prick test solution prepared from FB latex (200 μg/mL) was included in our routine screening programme for suspect inhalant allergy. Patients reacting with the FB extract were further skin tested with exotic fruits by the prick-to-prick method. Inhibition of fig and FB CAP by FB latex, fig (Ficus carica), kiwi, the thiolproteases ficin and papain, Hevea latex and rHev b 6.02 (hevein) was performed in selected patients. Results Of 2662 patients with a positive skin test to any aeroallergen, 66 (2.5%) reacted with FB. Ten patients showed isolated sensitization to FB. Although FB-positive subjects were more often co-sensitized to Hevea latex than FB-negative (10.6% vs 3.8%, P

Background: The peach lipid transfer protein Pru p 3 has been identified as a major allergen from this fruit. Homologous cross-reactive allergens have been found in several plant foods and pollens. Recombinant Pru p 3 has been recently produced in the yeast Pichia pastoris . Objective: We sought to evaluate the potential role of recombinant Pru p 3 as a novel tool for the diagnosis of fruit allergy. Methods: Circular dichroism analysis was used to compare the protein folding of natural Pru p 3 and recombinant Pru p 3. IgE binding by both molecular forms was quantified by means of ELISA and ELISA inhibition assays, and their biologic activity was estimated by using basophil activation, histamine release, and sulphidoleukotriene production tests. Individual sera or blood samples from patients with peach allergy (up to 17) were used in the assays. Results: A nearly identical circular dichroism spectra was shown by using natural Pru p 3 and recombinant Pru p 3, indicating that both protein forms are similarly folded. No difference was detected in the IgE-binding capacity of the 2 mo-lecular versions. Basophil activation and induction of sulphidoleukotriene production were positive in 9 of 10 patients, and histamine release was induced in at least half of the patients, with similar effects of the natural and recombinant forms in the 3 assays. Conclusion: Recombinant Pru p 3 shows a strong immunologic activity equivalent to that of its natural counterpart, and therefore it can be a useful tool for diagnosis (and future immunotherapy) of fruit allergy. (J Allergy Clin Immunol 2003;111:628-33.)

Purpose: Recently, component-resolved diagnosis (CRD) using microarray technology has been introduced to the field of clinical allergy. This study was aimed to investigate the clinical usefulness of microarray-based IgE detection for diagnosing clinical raw fruit allergy in birch pollen-sensitized children. Methods: Thirty-one children with allergic disease who had been sensitized to pollen were studied. A pollen-sensitized patient was defined as having an allergen-specific history with concomitant positive skin-prick tests (SPTs) to natural allergen extracts or positive allergen-specific IgE. All subjects underwent SPTs for pollen and fruit. In all subjects, specific IgE to pollen and fruit were measured by ImmunoCAP. Specific IgE antibodies to allergen components were determined by a customized allergen microarray (ISAC). Results: Thirteen of the 31 patients (41.9%) had a history of fruit hypersensitivity with positive SPTs. Measuring IgE to allergen components by ISAC, all the 13 patients with fruit hypersensitivity were positive to at least one of Mal d 1, Pru p 1, Pru p 3, Act d 8, and Act d 2 compared to 12 of the 13 patients (92.3%) who had at least 1 positive IgE to fruits (apple, peach, and kiwi) using ImmunoCAP. The sensitivity of ISAC microarray was 100.0% for the diagnosis of fruit hypersensitivity, but its specificity was 27.7% (5/18). The sensitivity of ImmunoCAP was 92.3%, and its specificity was 83.3%. Conclusion: The sensitivity of allergen components tested using microarray for the diagnosis of clinical fruit hypersensitivity in children with pollen allergy was high; however, its specificity was low.(Allergy Asthma Respir Dis 2015;3:200-205)

Mulberry (Morus spp.) is a widespread deciduous tree and its fruit is commonly eaten in Korea and eastern Asia. Some reports demonstrate that mulberry fruit is a food allergen in the Mediterranean area. However, there has been no report of systemic allergic reactions after ingesting mulberry fruit in Korea. An 18-year-old boy with a mulberry fruit allergy visited our allergy clinic. He had experienced generalized urticaria, chest tightness, breathing difficulty, and abdominal cramping after ingesting mulberry fruit. The patient had a positive skin reaction to mulberry fruit extract (mean wheal size, 5 mm). We performed an ELISA to detect specific IgE antibody (Ab) to mulberry fruit extract in the patient's serum compared to those of non-atopic healthy controls and birch-sensitized individuals. Specific IgE Ab to mulberry fruit extract was detected in the patient's serum, as compared to non-atopic healthy controls. Another subject, who was strongly sensitized to birch pollen, also had a positive serum-specific IgE Ab to mulberry fruit. We performed IgE immunoblot analysis using the patient's and the other subject's sera, who had serum-specific IgE to mulberry fruit, to identify the IgE-binding component. An identical IgE-binding component to mulberry extract was detected in the two subjects at around 17 kDa, and which might be PR 10 of Bet v 1. In conclusion, mulberry fruit could induce a systemic allergic reaction through an IgE-mediated mechanism, and cross-reactivity might occur between mulberry fruit and birch pollen.

Background: The few cases of food allergy to fig reported to date, whose main manifestations were anaphylactic reactions, have been related to a cross-sensitisation to weeping fig (Ficus benjamina) or to the ‘latex-fruit syndrome’. Here we report on two cases of the oral allergy syndrome (OAS) to fig in patients whose main allergic manifestations were related to sensitisation to grass and birch pollens. Methods: The patients were characterised by clinical history, skin prick tests (SPT) with commercial and in-house extracts, prick-by-prick test, specific IgE measurements and challenge tests. PBS-soluble and insoluble extracts of both fig skin and pulp were examined for the presence of potential allergens by IgE immunoblotting. Results: Both patients showed OAS followed by respiratory symptoms when challenged with fig. They were negative in both specific IgE detection and SPT with commercial extracts of fig and many other plant materials, including F. benjamina and Hevea brasiliensis, while grass and birch pollens gave positive results. Prick-by-prick tests and SPT with in-house extracts indicated that the fig skin had a much higher allergenicity than the pulp. Despite negative IgE detection by the CAP assay, immunoblotting experiments showed that potential fig allergens were PBS-soluble and present only in the skin of the fruit. Conclusions: OAS to fig followed by respiratory symptoms can be present in patients not sensitised to weeping fig or having the latex-fruit syndrome. Different parts of the fig can have different allergenicities, the most important allergens being proteins related to the skin of the fruit. Improved commercial fig extracts to be used for the diagnosis of this type of allergy have to be developed.

Background: Prescribing therapeutic elimination diets in patients with fruit allergy should include recommendations on which other foods of the same family or group may be safely consumed. Evidence-based data on the management of fruit allergy are lacking; therefore, advice may vary from just avoiding the offending fruit, to overly restrictive diets of the entire botanical family. The aims of this investigation were to assess clinical reactivity to potential cross-reactive foods in fruit-allergic patients, and the implications for prescribing specific therapeutic elimination diets. Methods: Sixty-five adults diagnosed with clinical allergy to one or more fruits were evaluated for IgE-mediated allergy to other related foods, which might share cross-reactive antigens. Those with actual allergy to some Rosaceae fruit (including peach, apple, apricot, plum, and almond) underwent skin prick testing (SPT), food-specific IgE assessment by the Pharmacia CAP-FEIA system, and oral challenges with the entire group. For those with allergy to other fruits (chestnut, melon, banana, kiwi, or avocado) immunologic and clinical reactivity to all five were evaluated. Since a number of people in the study also had proven clinically allergy to some nut or legume (peanut, sunflower seed, walnut, pistachio, or hazelnut), the reactivity to the entire set was investigated. Results: Thirty-four of those tested (52%) were found to be clinically allergic to more than one fruit, so 125 allergic reactions occurred in the 65 patients. Peach, melon, kiwi, apple, and banana accounted for 72% of allergic reactions. Forty-two (65%) had sensitization to pollens, causing seasonal allergic rhinitis and/or asthma, and 18 (28%) were sensitized to latex. The 65 with IgE-mediated fruit allergy underwent 351 additional SPT and food-specific IgE determinations with potential cross-reactive foods considered in this study; 223 (64%) of these results were positive. The routine challenges with potential cross-reactive foods uncovered 18 further reactions in 14 (22%) out of 65 (to avocado in seven; apricot in three; plum in one; almond and peanut in one; banana and hazelnut in one; avocado, banana and kiwi in one). Only 8% (18/223) of positive results for SPT, or food-specific IgE levels of greater than 0.35 kUA/l to potential cross-reactive foods investigated in this study, were clinically relevant. Conclusion: Elimination diets that rely on total group avoidance, or only on the results of allergy testing, might have resulted in unnecessary restriction of 205 foods in the 65 people studied. The lack of routine oral challenges with related fruits—before prescribing dietary restriction—may have allowed 18 food reactions in one-fifth (14/65) of patients to be overlooked.

Results Among 56 patients (46 male, age range 14-22,5 years, median 16,6 years) 55% had positive family history of atopy, 64% reported atopic dermatitis and 80% asthma and/or allergic rhinitis. 1/3 developed their first reaction to a food allergen during infancy, the main allergens being egg (11%), milk (9%) and fish (7%).32% first experienced FA as preschoolers, 27% between 6-12 years and only 11% in adolescence. In 21/56 patients the first reaction was anaphylaxis. All subjects became tolerant to milk and egg before adolescence. The most common allergens in late adolescence were nuts (including peanut) (55%), fruits (25%), fish (23%) and sesame seed (9%). Nut allergy appeared in 48,4% (15/31 patients) in preschool years, in 25,8% between 6-12 years and in 25,8% during adolescence. The rates for fish allergy apparition were 69,2%(9/13 patients), 23,1% and 7,7%, respectively. Fruit allergy emerged in most patients between 6 12 years old. Only 2 patients became tolerant to fish and 3 to nuts before/during adolescence. Over half of the patients experienced at least 1 anaphylactic reaction and 20% had 2 or more. An adrenaline auto-injector was prescribed to 80% of the patients. Nevertheless, only 18% reported carrying it at all circumstances and 20% occasionally.

Type 1 allergy against natural rubber latex is an increasing problem in health care workers and children with spina bifida or urogenital malformations. The aim of our study was to evaluate the prevalence of latex IgE antibodies and cross-reacting fruit antibodies in patients with spina bifida compared with atopic and non-atopic controls. Risk factors for sensitization should be determined. Sera of 148 patients with spina bifida and 98 controls (44 with atopy) were screened for IgE antibodies against latex, banana and kiwi by fluorescence enzyme immunoassay (CAP system). Atopies, allergic symptoms after latex contacts and the number of operations were compiled by a questionnaire. Patients with spina bifida developed latex IgE antibodies (or =0.7 kU/l) more frequently (40.5%) than atopic children (11.4%) or healthy controls (1.9%). All 18 symptomatic patients belonged to the spina bifida group and had high values of latex antibodies. The risk for developing latex antibodies increases with the number of operations. There was no difference in the history of atopic diseases and in a screening test of IgE antibodies against inhalative allergens between latex sensitized and not sensitized children with spina bifida. Antibodies against banana were more frequent in the latex sensitized children with spina bifida. (18.3% vs 3.4%, P = 0.002).The high prevalence of latex antibodies in children with spina bifida justifies a primary prophylaxis by avoiding latex contacts, especially during anaesthesia and surgery, a correlation between the number of operations and the development of latex antibodies exists.

Natural rubber latex allergy is responsible for a wide spectrum of clinical symptoms, ranging from rhinoconjunctivitis to severe anaphylaxis, in both adults and children. An association between allergy to latex and allergy to various fruits has been reported. This study investigated the prevalence and clinical significance of latex sensitization in children seen in a university hospital allergy clinic. A total of 453 consecutive children were screened in a 7-month period. A detailed clinical history with particular attention to the past surgical history and the eventual presence of latex- or food-induced allergic symptoms was obtained. Skin prick tests (SPT) for the more important inhalant allergens and foods were performed on all children. In patients with positive latex SPT, latex challenge and additional SPT for some fresh foods (avocado, pineapple, apricot, grape, banana, pear, apple, orange, almond, and chestnut) were also performed. RAST for the same food antigens, as well as patch test with latex and a standard battery of contact allergens, was also done. Of 326 atopic children, 10 (3%) presented positive skin test to latex, but only five (1.5%) also had a positive clinical history to latex exposure. Latex challenge was positive in 3/9 positive-latex-SPT children. None of the nonatopic children had positive skin test to latex or symptoms to latex exposure. A history of previous surgery was found in 5/10 positive-latex-SPT children, in 63/316 negative-latex-SPT atopic children (P

Methods A 41-year-old woman developed severe facial angioedema and dyspnea within 15 minutes of persimmon fruit intake. She was treated with intravenous corticosteroids and antihistamines, monitored in a hospital for two days and attended our clinic the next week for assessment of possible fruit allergy. She reported a previous episode of angioedema and generalized urticaria some months ago, immediately after had eaten a kaki. The patient had an allergic rhinitis to house dust mites and also she suffered diabetes mellitus. She was in treatment with metformine 1500 mg a day. Skin prick tests were positive for Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus and farinae. (Stallergenes, Cedex, France). Prick by prick were performed by placing a piece of persimmon fruit on the forearm and pricking through them and itwas positive in our patient (++++) but not in 3 healthy controls. We realized also an open food challenge with fresh persimmon fruit. Traces of this fruit were introduced to the patient initially by contacting the lip without getting any allergic symptoms. Finally a substantial amount of the fruit was consumed and 15 minutes later our patient experienced pruritus, facial angioedema and dyspnea. The test was stopped when the adverse reaction occured.

Patients with tree pollinosis frequently report allergic reactions after ingestion of apples. The severity of apple allergy has been related to the variety of apples and their degree of maturity. To generate a serum pool that is representative of various IgE-binding patterns of apple-allergic sera, serum samples from 34 patients allergic to tree pollens were screened. Only 24 serum samples reacted to the apple extract. Pooled serum was used to identify allergens in apples. An efficient and consistent extraction method for apple fruits was used to compare the immunoreactivities of extracts of different varieties (McIntosh, Red Delicious, Granny Smith, and Golden Delicious) of freshly picked and store-purchased apples. We found that Golden Delicious apples had the greatest amount of the 18 kd allergen, which has been reported to be a potent IgE-binding apple allergen. Store-purchased apples contained higher concentrations of the 18 kd allergen than freshly picked apples. In our study only 37.5% of sera reacted to the 18 kd protein, whereas 75% of the sera reacted to a 31 kd allergen. Other immunoreactive bands in apple extracts included proteins of 50, 38, 16, 14, and 13 kd. The amino-terminal amino acid sequences of the two major allergens, 18 kd and 31 kd, were determined. These sequences shared approximately 50% identity with disease resistance proteins of various plants or Bet v 1 in birch tree pollens. The appearance of various allergens was also investigated in mature apples during storage. The amount of 18 kd allergen increased significantly when apples were stored at 4 degrees C. However, under controlled atmospheric conditions in which oxygen- and carbon dioxide-induced ripening were regulated, the amount of 18 kd allergen remained unaffected. Because ripening and maturation were not associated with increases in 18 kd allergen content, the observed changes might be induced by factors related to disease resistance.

Background: In this study serum samples collected from 20 patients with birch pollen allergy were investigated. All patients had experienced allergic symptoms after contact with or ingestion of particular fresh fruits and vegetables known as birch pollen-related foods. Methods: Serum samples were tested by means of immunoblotting for IgE reactivities with proteins in extracts of birch pollen, apple, pear, celery, carrot, and potato. Anti-Bet v 1 and anti-Bet v 2 antibodies were used to investigate cross-reactivity. Inhibition studies were performed by preincubation of sera with recombinant Bet v 1 and Bet v 2. Results: IgE binding to proteins, corresponding to the major birch pollen allergen Bet v 1 and to Bet v 2 (birch pollen profilin) could be observed. An allergen homologous to Bet v 1 could be detected in apple, pear, and celery when a Bet v 1-specific monoclonal antibody was used. Testing a polyclonal rabbit anti-Bet v 2 antibody with extracts of the respective plants revealed the presence of profilins in every source tested. Inhibition with recombinant Bet v 1 and Bet v 2 led to complete blocking or marked reduction of IgE binding to proteins of comparable molecular weights in the respective food extracts, indicating IgE cross-reactivity. Conclusion: Our results indicate that many plant-derived food agents contain proteins with high homology to the birch pollen allergens Bet v 1 and Bet v 2 and must therefore be considered as potentially threatening for patients with tree pollen allergy. (J ALLERGY CLIN IMMUNOL 1995;95:962-9.)