Soy sauce retains allergenicity through the fermentation/production process

Hefle, Susan L.; Lambrecht, Debra M.; Nordlee, Julie A.

doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2004.12.143

Cited by 16 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A majority of developed PCR and ELISA methods do not detect the presence of soybeans in a soy sauce. With that, this product retains its allergenicity [21]. In our work, PCR with the primers Gly_MAX gave a positive result.…”

Section: Analysis Of Food Productssupporting

confidence: 58%

Detection of soybean by real-time PCR in the samples subjected to deep technological processing

Kurbakov

Коноров

Zhulinkova

et al. 2019

Teor. prakt. pererab. mâsa (Print)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During deep technological processing, DNA of food product components (specifically, in canned foods) is subjected to strong degradation, which makes the PCR-based food components identification more difficult. In this work, a primer-probe system is proposed, which was selected for the multi-copy region of long terminal repeat (LTR) of soybean (Glycine max). We confirmed its high sensitivity and specificity for soybean detection by real-time PCR. Using the selected system, we successfully analyzed the samples of meat-and-plant canned foods and other food products subjected to deep technological processing — tofu, preserved tofu, soy sauces, confectionary products containing soy lecithin. To compare with these samples, real-time PCR was carried out using the primer-probe system selected for the single-copy le1 gene. In terms of sensitivity, the use of the primer-probe system specific to the single-copy region was significantly inferior to the primer-probe system specific to the LTR region. The difference in the rate of degradation of these genomic DNA regions of Glycine max was found.

show abstract

Section: Analysis Of Food Productssupporting

confidence: 58%

Detection of soybean by real-time PCR in the samples subjected to deep technological processing

Kurbakov

Коноров

Zhulinkova

et al. 2019

Teor. prakt. pererab. mâsa (Print)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, a person who is allergic to ketchup may not have an immune reaction to a raw tomato. If tested using traditional food sensitivity assays, this patient would result negative for tomato, and the patient's problems would be unresolved [ 10 , 11 , 13 , 14 , 16 , 18 , 19 , 21 , 22 , 29 - 32 ]. Despite all of these findings documented in scientific literature and the demonstration of IgE-mediated reaction to many processed food antigens while not reacting to raw foods, almost all commercial laboratories measure IgE and IgG antibodies primarily against raw food antigens.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Neoallergen formation has been known for at least three decades [ 12 ]; it may be part of the reason why some individuals can tolerate a raw food or raw food ingredient but will react to the same food when it is processed. Studies have found neoallergens from pecans [ 13 ], wheat flour [ 14 ], roasted peanuts [ 15 ], lentil [ 16 ], almond, cashew nut and walnut [ 17 ], soybean [ 18 , 19 ], shrimp, scallop, tuna, egg, apple, plum, milk and potato [ 2 , 11 , 20 - 22 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Detection of IgE, IgG, IgA and IgM antibodies against raw and processed food antigens

Vojdani¹

2009

Nutr Metab (Lond)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are few studies [6] comparing fundamentally different soy detection methods applied to a varied selection of soy-containing products. Since risk assessments are highly dependent on reliable detection methods, we aimed at comparing different approaches to identify soybean in foods with different levels of soy content and processing.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Soybean allergen detection methods – A comparison study

Pedersen

Holzhauser

Bisson³

et al. 2008

Molecular Nutrition Food Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Soybean containing products are widely consumed, thus reliable methods for detection of soy in foods are needed in order to make appropriate risk assessment studies to adequately protect soy allergic patients. Six methods were compared using eight food products with a declared content of soy: a direct sandwich ELISA based on polyclonal rabbit antibody (ab) to raw soy flakes, a commercial and an in-house competitive ELISA both based on ab to denatured, 'renatured' soy protein, an enzyme-allergosorbent test (EAST) inhibition based on two sera from soy allergic patients, histamine release (HR) using basophils passively sensitized with patient serum and a PCR method detecting soy DNA. Eight food products were selected as model foods to test the performance of the methods. There was an overall good agreement between the methods in terms of ranks of soy content but not the quantity. The sandwich ELISA aimed at native soy proteins had the lowest detection limit of 0.05 ppm, but only identified soy in 5/8 products, and generally in lower amounts compared to other methods. The competitive ELISA had a higher detection limit of 21 ppm, but seemed more successful in detecting processed soy. Only HR, EAST inhibition and PCR detected soy in all eight products. In spite of a general good correlation in terms of ranks of soy content, more than a single method may be necessary to confirm the presence of soy in foods.

show abstract

Soy sauce retains allergenicity through the fermentation/production process

Cited by 16 publications

References 0 publications

Detection of soybean by real-time PCR in the samples subjected to deep technological processing

Detection of soybean by real-time PCR in the samples subjected to deep technological processing

Detection of IgE, IgG, IgA and IgM antibodies against raw and processed food antigens

Soybean allergen detection methods – A comparison study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About