Protein digestibility and relevance to allergenicity.

Bannon, Gary A.; Fu, Tong Jen; Kimber, Ian; Hinton, Dennis M.

doi:10.1289/ehp.5812

Cited by 66 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The relationship of the resistance to digestion and the likelihood a dietary protein is an allergen was identified (Astw ood 1996;Vassilopoulou 2006;Moreno 2005;Vieths, 1999) but the assay was never meant to mimic the fate of proteins in vivo and the correlation is not absolute (Fu 2000). Rath er, the assay was meant to identify proteins that share a physico-chemical property, resistance to digestion, of known food allergens (Bannon 2004). The purpose is to provide information that, in conjuncti on with other evidence, would be useful in predicting whether a dietary protein may become a food allergen (Bannon 2003).…”

Section: General Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Rath er, the assay was meant to identify proteins that share a physico-chemical property, resistance to digestion, of known food allergens (Bannon 2004). The purpose is to provide information that, in conjuncti on with other evidence, would be useful in predicting whether a dietary protein may become a food allergen (Bannon 2003). Therefore, we do not agree that there is value to in vitro digestibility assays performed under more physiological conditions to account for individuals with altered digestive physiology.…”

Section: General Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Rather, the assay was meant to identify proteins that share a physico-chemical property, resistance to digestion, of known food allergens (Bannon, 2004). The purpose is to provide information that, in conjunction with other evidence, would be useful in predicting whether a dietary protein may become a food allergen (Bannon et al, 2003).…”

Section: General Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Outcome of the public consultation on the draft Scientific Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) on the assessment of allergenicity of GM plants and microorganisms and derived food and feed

2010

EFSA Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYOn 21 October 2009, the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO Panel) of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) endorsed a draft Opinion on the assessment of allergenicity of GM plants and microorganisms and derived food and feed with the aim of launching it for public consultation. This Scientific Report summarises the comments received through the public consultation and outlines how these were taken into account in the final opinion.EFSA received 181 comments from 17 interested parties (individuals, non-governmental organisations, industry organisations, academia and national assessment bodies). All the public comments received that were within the remit of the EFSA GMO Panel were assessed and the Scientific Opinion on the assessment of allergenicity of GM plants and microorganisms and derived food and feed has been revised taking the relevant comments into consideration.The Scientific Opinion follows a weight-of-evidence, case-by-case approach as described in the EFSA guidance document for the risk assessment of GM plants and derived food and feed, and the Codex Alimentarius guideline. Although this approach has not been questioned, the EFSA GMO Panel addressed the general comments that were related to the way how to conduct this approach and how to interpret the results of the methods as recommended in the Scientific Opinion. In addition, more technical comments related to the specifics have been addressed in the different annexes.1 On request of EFSA, Question No EFSA-Q-2009-00936, issued on 28 July 2010. 2 Correspondence: GMO@efsa.europa.eu 3 Acknowledgement: EFSA wishes to thank the members of the Working Group on -the assessment of allergenicity of genetically modified foods‖ for the preparation of this EFSA scientific output and EFSA's staff member(s) Ellen Van Haver and Antonio Fernandez Dumont for the support provided to this EFSA scientific output.Outcome of the public consultation on the draft opinion on the assessment of allergenicity of GM plants and microorganisms and derived food and feed 2 EFSA Journal 2010; 8(7)1699 Outcome of the public consultation on the draft opinion on the assessment of allergenicity of GM plants and microorganisms and derived food and feed 3 EFSA Journal 2010; 8(7)1699 BACKGROUNDThe European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) asked the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO Panel) to establish a Working Group and to deliver a scientific opinion on -The Assessment of allergenicity of genetically modified food‖.On 21 October 2009, the EFSA GMO Panel endorsed a draft Opinion on the assessment of allergenicity of GM plants and microorganisms and derived food and feed with the aim of launching it for public consultation. This Scientific Report summarises the comments received through the public consultation and outlines how these were taken into account in the final opinion.In line with EFSA's policy on openness and transparency and in order for EFSA to receive comments from the scientific community and stakeholders on its work, EFSA engages in public consul...

show abstract

Section: General Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: General Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: General Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Outcome of the public consultation on the draft Scientific Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) on the assessment of allergenicity of GM plants and microorganisms and derived food and feed

2010

EFSA Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous investigations have indicated that there exists an association between the resistance of proteins to digestion in a simulated gastric fluid and sensitizing activity . Although this correlation is not absolute, evaluation of resistance to proteolysis is currently regarded as one component of the safety assessment process (Bannon et al 2003). It is frequently assumed that such an association reflects the fact that for a protein to induce sensitization after oral ingestion, it will have to display some level of stability in the gastric environment in order to interact effectively with the mucosal immune system.…”

Section: Oral and Systemic Exposure Of Balb/c Micementioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of protein allergenicity on the basis of immune reactivity: animal models.

Kimber

Dearman

Penninks

et al. 2003

Environ Health Perspect

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Because of the public concern surrounding the issue of the safety of genetically modified organisms, it is critical to have appropriate methodologies to aid investigators in identifying potential hazards associated with consumption of foods produced with these materials. A recent panel of experts convened by the Food and Agriculture Organization and World Health Organization suggested there is scientific evidence that using data from animal studies will contribute important information regarding the allergenicity of foods derived from biotechnology. This view has given further impetus to the development of suitable animal models for allergenicity assessment. This article is a review of what has been achieved and what still has to be accomplished regarding several different animal models. Progress made in the design and evaluation of models in the rat, the mouse, the dog and in swine is reviewed and discussed.

show abstract

“…Several investigators term protein as «stable» after incubation times ranging from 8 to 60 min (Bannon et al 2003;Fu 2002;Herman et al 2006). As far as the unstable proteins usually survive less than 15 sec in the similar assay conditions, such conclusion seems to be quite correct.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%