A method for quantitation of food biologic activity: Results with peach allergen extracts

Cuesta‐Herranz, Javier; Lázaro, Milagros; Martı́nez, Alberto; Álvarez-Cuesta, Emilio; Figueredo, E; Martı́nez, Jorge; Cuesta, C.; de-Las-Heras, Manuel

doi:10.1016/s0091-6749(98)70096-x

Cited by 17 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In a Spanish study, allergic reactions were 4 times more frequent to peaches than to apples, despite greater apple consumption [5]. Peach is a common cause of food allergy in Italy [6, 7], Spain [8] and Portugal, probably related to its large production and consumption, to the south European pollen load and sensitization rates and, as recently suggested, increased contact with peach fuzz [9]. …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical, Anamnestic and Serological Features of Peach Allergy in Portugal

Rodrigues-Alves

Lopez

Pereira-Santos³

et al. 2008

Int Arch Allergy Immunol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Peach is a common food allergen source throughout Europe. The aim of this study was to characterize peach allergy in a Portuguese patient population. Methods: Thirty peach-allergic patients confirmed by double-blind placebo-controlled food challenges and 29 controls were included. All subjects completed a standardized questionnaire regarding symptoms and epidemiologic characteristics, skin prick tests with inhalant allergens and foods as well as specific IgE antibodies to peach, recombinant peach allergens rPru p 1, rPru p 3, rPru p 4 and cross-reactive carbohydrate determinants. Results: Thirty-seven percent of patients reported only oral allergy syndrome, while 37% reported generalized urticaria and/or angioedema, 17% localized contact urticaria and 10% anaphylaxis with peach. Sensitization to other Rosaceae fruits and tree nuts was present in 90 and 77% of the patients, respectively. Respiratory allergy history was associated with less severe symptoms (oral allergy syndrome or contact urticaria; p < 0.01) and positive skin prick test to peach peel or plum with more severe symptoms (urticaria and/or angioedema or anaphylaxis; p < 0.05). Ninety-seven percent were sensitized to Pru p 3, 13% to Pru p 4, 3% to Pru p 1 and 10% to cross-reactive carbohydrate determinants. Pru p 3 specific IgE was associated with Artemisia vulgaris sensitization and tree nut allergy (p < 0.05) but not with clinical severity. Conclusions: Half the patients reported systemic reactions to peach. Peach allergy appeared predominantly mediated by Pru p 3 but some patients were sensitized to Pru p 4. Applying a 0.10 kU_A/l cutoff level, the diagnostic value of combining the 3 recombinant allergens was noteworthy, with 100% sensitivity and 90% specificity.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical, Anamnestic and Serological Features of Peach Allergy in Portugal

Rodrigues-Alves

Lopez

Pereira-Santos³

et al. 2008

Int Arch Allergy Immunol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Available commercial food extracts can be negative in sensitized or allergic patients due to a reduction in biological activity during the manufacturing process, mainly during homogenization, extraction and filtration processes.) [ 3 , 4 ] SPT with fresh foods (prick-prick tests) are considered the gold standard to assess sensitization [ 5 ]. The use of fresh foods is a non-standardized process, the availability of the source material is irregular and differences in their allergenic composition within the same food depending on the variety, state of ripeness, conservation process and cooking method among other factors may exist [ 6 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the last years, some studies have reported that several carefully prepared manufactured food extracts induced skin reactions similar to prick-prick tests.) [ 3 , 4 , 7 ], but results may vary depending on the studied population [ 8 ]. It has been demonstrated that tomato sensitization is frequent in Spain [ 9 ], but the efficiency of commercial tomato extracts compared with prick-prick fresh tomatoes remains unknown.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Usefulness of manufactured tomato extracts in the diagnosis of tomato sensitization: Comparison with the prick-prick method

Ferrer

Huertas²,

Larramendi

et al. 2008

Clin Mol Allergy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundCommercial available skin prick test with fruits can be negative in sensitized or allergic patients due to a reduction in biological activity during the manufacturing process. Prick-prick tests with fresh foods are often preferred, but they are a non-standardized procedure. The usefulness of freeze-dried extracts of Canary Islands tomatoes, comparing the wheal sizes induced by prick test with the prick-prick method in the diagnosis of tomato sensitization has been analyzed.The objective of the study was to assess the potential diagnostic of freeze-dried extracts of Canary Islands tomatoes, comparing the wheal sizes induced by prick test with the prick-prick method.MethodsTwo groups of patients were analyzed: Group I: 26 individuals reporting clinical symptoms induced by tomato contact or ingestion. Group II: 71 control individuals with no symptoms induced by tomato: 12 of them were previously skin prick test positive to a tomato extract, 39 were atopic and 20 were non-atopic. All individuals underwent prick-prick with fresh ripe peel Canary tomatoes and skin prick tested with freeze-dried peel and pulp extracts obtained from peel and pulp of Canary tomatoes at 10 mg/ml. Wheal sizes and prick test positivity (≥ 7 mm2) were compared between groups.ResultsIn group I, 21 (81%) out of 26 patients were prick-prick positive. Twenty patients (77%) had positive skin prick test to peel extracts and 12 (46%) to pulp extracts. Prick-prick induced a mean wheal size of 43.81 ± 40.19 mm2 compared with 44.25 ± 36.68 mm2 induced by the peel extract (Not significant), and 17.79 ± 9.39 mm2 induced by the pulp extract (p < 0.01).In group II, 13 (18%) out of 71 control patients were prick-prick positive. Twelve patients (all of them previously positive to peel extract) had positive skin prick test to peel and 3 to pulp. Prick-prick induced a mean wheal size of 28.88 ± 13.12 mm2 compared with 33.17 ± 17.55 mm2 induced by peel extract (Not significant), and 13.33 ± 4.80 mm2 induced by pulp extract (p < 0.05 with peel extract and prick-prick).ConclusionCanary peel tomato extract seems to be as efficient as prick-prick tests with ripe tomatoes to diagnose patients sensitized to tomato. The wheal sizes induced by prick-prick and peel extracts were very similar and showed a high correlation coefficient.

show abstract

“…Twenty-six to 40% of adults with pollen allergies (birch, grass and wormwood) present OAS; with the opposite occurring with patients with rosaceae fruit allergies (7,8). A study carried out in Spain (9) notes that more than 80% of people allergic to peaches are allergic to pollen. For the majority of patients, OAS is usually always preceded by hay fever and tends to occur more often in children and adults.…”

Section: Epidemiologymentioning

confidence: 99%