Allergy to fish parvalbumins: Studies on the cross-reactivity of allergens from 9 commonly consumed fish

Do, Thien Van; Elsayed, S.; Florvaag, Erik; Hordvik, Ivar; Endresen, Curt

doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2005.07.033

Cited by 181 publications

(134 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

129

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In one case, the presumed allergen (based on immunoblotting) showed homology with α-S1-casein from cow's milk ( Parvalbumin is responsible for most of the extensive cross-reactivity among fish species. However, owing to the broad repertoire of molecular forms of parvalbumin and the small role of other allergens, patterns of serological and clinical cross-reactivity are difficult to predict (Hansen et al, 1997;Helbling et al, 1999;Van Do et al, 2005). Extensive serological and clinical cross-reactivity has been observed among closely related as well as among more distant fish species (Bernhisel-Broadbent et al, 1992;Pascual et al, 1992;Hamada et al, 2003).…”

Section: Fish Roe Allergensmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scientific Opinion on the evaluation of allergenic foods and food ingredients for labelling purposes

Products¹

2014

EFS2

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Following a request from the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, the EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies (NDA Panel) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the evaluation of allergenic foods and food ingredients for labelling purposes. In view of the request, the NDA Panel decided to update its previous opinions relative to food ingredients or substances with known allergenic potential listed in Annex IIIa of 2003/89/EC, as amended. These include cereals containing gluten, milk and dairy products, eggs, nuts, peanuts, soy, fish, crustaceans, molluscs, celery, lupin, sesame, mustard and sulphites. The opinion relates to immunoglobulin (Ig)E-and non-IgE-mediated food allergy, to coeliac disease and to adverse reactions to sulphites in food, and it does not address non-immune-mediated adverse reactions to food. It includes information on the prevalence of food allergy in unselected populations, proteins identified as food allergens, cross-reactivities, the effects of food processing on the allergenicity of foods and ingredients, methods for the detection of allergens and allergenic foods, doses observed to trigger adverse reactions in sensitive individuals and risk assessment methodologies that have been used to derive individual and population thresholds for selected allergenic foods. The present opinion relates to immunoglobulin (Ig)E-and non-IgE-mediated food allergy, to coeliac disease and to adverse reactions to sulphites in food, and it does not address non-immune-mediated adverse reactions to food. For each food ingredient or substance listed in Annex IIIa, it includes information on the prevalence of food allergy in unselected populations, on proteins identified as food allergens, on cross-reactivities, on the effects of food processing on the allergenicity of foods and ingredients, on methods for the detection of allergens and allergenic foods, and on doses observed to trigger adverse reactions in sensitive individuals.Immune-mediated adverse reactions to foods manifest with clinical signs and symptoms of variable severity and duration, which may affect different organs and systems. Anaphylactic reactions to food are IgE mediated and may occur at any age. Non-IgE-mediated food allergy includes a wide range of diseases, including protein-induced enterocolitis and eosinophilic oesophagitis.A careful family and clinical history are the basis for diagnosis of food allergy. Food diaries, skin prick tests (SPTs), allergen-specific IgE measurements, food elimination diets and food challenges are part of the standard protocol for the diagnosis of food allergy. A positive SPT indicates sensitisation to the tested food, but it is not diagnostic of food allergy. Allergen-specific serum IgE antibodies similarly denote sensitisation to a particular food, but they are not diagnostic without a clinical history or food challenge. The use of atopy patch tests for the diagnosis of food allergy is controversial. Other available tests have no current role in the diagnosis of food allergy. Diag...

show abstract

Section: Fish Roe Allergensmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scientific Opinion on the evaluation of allergenic foods and food ingredients for labelling purposes

Products¹

2014

EFS2

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Parvalbumins from various fish species are recognized by IgE in more than 95% of fish-allergic patients [6]. Cod parvalbumin, Gad c1, prevents fish-specific IgE from binding to extracts of other fish species, demonstrating cross-sensitization between Gad c1-homologous parvalbumins from different fish species: salmon, perch, carp, eel and tuna [7], herring, plaice and mackerel [5], catfish and snapper [8] and pollack, wolffish, halibut and flounder [9]. Tuna, however, is poorly recognized in some studies [8,9].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Cod parvalbumin, Gad c1, prevents fish-specific IgE from binding to extracts of other fish species, demonstrating cross-sensitization between Gad c1-homologous parvalbumins from different fish species: salmon, perch, carp, eel and tuna [7], herring, plaice and mackerel [5], catfish and snapper [8] and pollack, wolffish, halibut and flounder [9]. Tuna, however, is poorly recognized in some studies [8,9]. Additional IgE-binding proteins between 18 and 130 kDa have been described in the Baltic cod (Gadus callarias) [10,11] and in the Atlantic cod (G. morhua) [12].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Industrial Processing on the Immunogenicity of Commonly Ingested Fish Species

Sletten¹,

Do²,

Lindvik³

et al. 2009

Int Arch Allergy Immunol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Food-processing techniques may induce changes in fish protein immunogenicity. Allergens from >100 fish species have been identified, but little is known on the effects of processing on fish protein immunogenicity. Methods: IgE binding of sera of patients allergic to fresh and processed (smoked, salted/sugar-cured, canned, lye-treated and fermented) cod, haddock, salmon, trout, tuna, mackerel and herring and of hydrolysates based on salmon and whiting was investigated using immunoblot and inhibition ELISA. Results: Parvalbumin oligomers were identified using monoclonal and polyclonal antibodies. IgE binding was seen in most sera at 12–14 kDa (parvalbumin), and at 17–60 kDa for all fish except tuna. Changes in IgE binding appeared to reflect altered parvalbumin monomers and oligomers. Smoked haddock, salmon and mackerel had increased IgE binding and novel bands at 30 kDa. Chemically processed cod, salmon, trout and pickled herring had reduced or abolished IgE binding. The serum of 1 subject, however, had increased IgE binding to these products and also inhibition of binding by both fish hydrolysates to their constituent fish species. Conclusion: Process-induced changes in fish protein immunogenicity were more dependent on process rather than species, although individual responses varied. Changes in the allergenicity of a product may depend on the net effect of processing on parvalbumin oligomerization patterns, which may also vary in different species. Chemical processes generally caused loss in IgE-binding activity, though sensitization may occur to modified or degraded rather than intact peptides as shown by increased binding by chemically processed fish and hydrolysates in 1 subject. The clinical significance of these findings remains to be established.

show abstract

“…The health concern of isinglass is represented by its allergological potential. Salmon, tuna, and halibut are the most common allergenic fishes, but fish-allergic people are often sensitive to almost all kind of fish (Van Do et al 2005). Sub-trace amounts of fish allergens in wines are still able to elicit IgE-mediated skin responses and in vitro basophil activation in sensitised patients.…”

Section: Proteins Used In Winemaking and Possible Drawbacks Related Tmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hidden exogenous proteins in wine: problems, methods of detection and related legislation - a review

Rizzi¹,

Mainente²,

Pasini³

et al. 2016

Czech J. Food Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rizzi C., Mainente F., Pasini G., Simonato B. (2016): Hidden exogenous proteins in wine: problems, methods of detection and related legislation -a review. Czech J. Food Sci., 34: 93-104.Fining agents are commonly used in the winemaking process to clarify and stabilise wines. They have different origins (animal, vegetal or mineral) and are added to wines in order to remove specifically undesirable compounds that are discarded. Fining agents should not be present in the final product but their possible persistence, as well as other exogenous residual proteins such as the enzymes utilised in winemaking, cannot be excluded for sure. The principal concern about the presence of exogenous residual proteins is the health of allergic subjects. Nevertheless, the respect of religious creed or other practice of living of the consumer must be considered as well. In the present review we itemise the proteins used in winemaking and possible drawbacks of their permanence in the final products and the related risks, depict the status of the art of the studies performed about the detection of exogenous proteins, and describe the wine labelling laws adopted in different countries to avoid the drawbacks associated with these hidden substances.

show abstract

Allergy to fish parvalbumins: Studies on the cross-reactivity of allergens from 9 commonly consumed fish

Cited by 181 publications

References 28 publications

Scientific Opinion on the evaluation of allergenic foods and food ingredients for labelling purposes

Scientific Opinion on the evaluation of allergenic foods and food ingredients for labelling purposes

Effects of Industrial Processing on the Immunogenicity of Commonly Ingested Fish Species

Hidden exogenous proteins in wine: problems, methods of detection and related legislation - a review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About