How far can we simplify <i>in vitro</i> diagnostics for Fagales tree pollen allergy? A study with three whole pollen extracts and purified natural and recombinant allergens

Ree, Ronald van; Leeuwen, W.A. van; Akkerdaas, Jaap H.; Aalberse, Rob C.

doi:10.1046/j.1365-2222.1999.00521.x

Cited by 53 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the fine specificity of IgE directed to variable epitopes may influence the clinical manifestation of profilin sensitization (Radauer et al, 2006). Natural profilin seems to be better for diagnosis than its recombinant counterpart both in vitro and in vivo, possibly because of improper folding of the recombinant molecule, as shown for rBet v 2 and nBet v 2 (van Ree et al, 1999;Pauli et al, 1996;Elfman et al, 1997;Wensing et al, 2002).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sensitization to profilin in the Central region of Portugal

Tavares

Machado

Loureiro

et al. 2008

Science of The Total Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sensitization to profilin in the Central region of Portugal

Tavares

Machado

Loureiro

et al. 2008

Science of The Total Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Other food extracts were prepared as described elsewhere [29]. Birch pollen extract (BPE) was made as described before [30]. Recombinant (r)Bet v 2 was purchased from Biomay (Vienna, Austria), natural (n)Bet v 1 and nMal d 1 were purified by affinity purification using monoclonal antibody 5H8 (directed to nBet v 1 and homologs) [31].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Severe Allergy to Sharon Fruit Caused by Birch Pollen

Bolhaar

Ree

et al. 2005

Int Arch Allergy Immunol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Allergy to sharon fruit (persimmon) has been only rarely reported. Cross-reactivity with pollen (profilin and Bet v 6) appeared to be involved, but Bet v 1 has not been implicated previously. Objective: It is our aim to identify whether Bet v 1 sensitization is linked to sharon fruit allergy. Methods: Two patients with a reaction upon first exposure to sharon fruit were included in the study, as well as 7 patients with birch-pollen-related apple allergy. Sensitivity was assessed by skin prick testing (SPT), a radio-allergosorbent test (RAST) and immunoblotting. RAST analysis was performed for Bet v 1, Bet v 2 and Bet v 6. Cross-reactivity was evaluated by RAST and immunoblot inhibitions. Biological activity of IgE was measured by basophil histamine release. Sharon fruit allergy was evaluated by double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC) or open challenge (OC). Results: Both sharon-fruit-allergic patients demonstrated positive reactions in the RAST (8.6 and 6.2 IU/ml, respectively) and SPT (wheal area 37 and 36 mm²). Sharon fruit allergy was confirmed by DBPCFC in 1 patient. The second patient refused a challenge because of the severe initial reaction. Sera from both patients were reactive to Bet v 1 and Bet v 6, which was cross-reactive with sharon fruit by inhibition assays. The patient with the severest reactions was reactive to profilin on immunoblotting. However, profilin did not induce significant histamine release, nor did Bet v 6. Bet v 1 induce approximately 60% histamine release. An OC with sharon fruit in 7 patients allergic to birch pollen and apple, who had not eaten sharon fruit previously, was positive in 6/7 cases. Conclusions: Birch-pollen-related allergy to sharon fruit is mediated by the known cross-reactive pollen allergens including Bet v 1 and may become more of a problem should sharon fruit consumption increase.

show abstract

“…Recombinant allergens have been used for the in vitro diagnosis of grass (1206,1207,1213,1246,1247), birch and Fagaleae (1248)(1249)(1250)(1251)(1252)(1253), Oleaceae (1199,1254), pollens or mites (1255)(1256)(1257). A single recombinant allergen or a combination of a few major recombinant allergens can substitute the crude extract for in vitro diagnostic purposes (1258,1259).…”

Section: In Vitro Testsmentioning

confidence: 99%