Reduction of Cross-Reactive Carbohydrate Determinants in Plant Foodstuff: Elucidation of Clinical Relevance and Implications for Allergy Diagnosis
Background: A longstanding debate in allergy is whether or not specific immunoglobulin-E antibodies (sIgE), recognizing cross-reactive carbohydrate determinants (CCD), are able to elicit clinical symptoms. In pollen and food allergy, $20% of patients display in-vitro CCD reactivity based on presence...
Verfasser: | |
---|---|
FB/Einrichtung: | FB 13: Biologie |
Dokumenttypen: | Artikel |
Medientypen: | Text |
Erscheinungsdatum: | 2011 |
Publikation in MIAMI: | 17.02.2013 |
Datum der letzten Änderung: | 06.01.2023 |
Angaben zur Ausgabe: | [Electronic ed.] |
Quelle: | PLoS ONE 6 (2011) 3, e17800 |
Fachgebiet (DDC): | 570: Biowissenschaften; Biologie |
Lizenz: | CC BY 2.5 |
Sprache: | English |
Anmerkungen: | Finanziert durch den Open-Access-Publikationsfonds 2011/2012 der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) und der Westfälischen Wilhelms-Universität Münster (WWU Münster). |
Format: | PDF-Dokument |
URN: | urn:nbn:de:hbz:6-17389570620 |
Weitere Identifikatoren: | DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0017800 |
Permalink: | https://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:hbz:6-17389570620 |
Onlinezugriff: | journal.pone.0017800.pdf |
Background: A longstanding debate in allergy is whether or not specific immunoglobulin-E antibodies (sIgE), recognizing cross-reactive carbohydrate determinants (CCD), are able to elicit clinical symptoms. In pollen and food allergy, $20% of patients display in-vitro CCD reactivity based on presence of a1,3-fucose and/or b1,2-xylose residues on N-glycans of plant (xylose/fucose) and insect (fucose) glycoproteins. Because the allergenicity of tomato glycoallergen Lyc e 2 was ascribed to N-glycan chains alone, this study aimed at evaluating clinical relevance of CCD-reduced foodstuff in patients with carbohydrate-specific IgE (CCD-sIgE). Methodology/Principal Findings: Tomato and/or potato plants with stable reduction of Lyc e 2 (tomato) or CCD formation in general were obtained via RNA interference, and gene-silencing was confirmed by immunoblot analyses. Two different CCD-positive patient groups were compared: one with tomato and/or potato food allergy and another with hymenopteravenom allergy (the latter to distinguish between CCD- and peptide-specific reactions in the food-allergic group). Nonallergic and CCD-negative food-allergic patients served as controls for immunoblot, basophil activation, and ImmunoCAP analyses. Basophil activation tests (BAT) revealed that Lyc e 2 is no key player among other tomato (glyco)allergens. CCDpositive patients showed decreased (re)activity with CCD-reduced foodstuff, most obvious in the hymenoptera venomallergic but less in the food-allergic group, suggesting that in-vivo reactivity is primarily based on peptide- and not CCDsIgE. Peptide epitopes remained unaffected in CCD-reduced plants, because CCD-negative patient sera showed reactivity similar to wild-type. In-house-made ImmunoCAPs, applied to investigate feasibility in routine diagnosis, confirmed BAT results at the sIgE level. Conclusions/Significance: CCD-positive hymenoptera venom-allergic patients (control group) showed basophil activation despite no allergic symptoms towards tomato and potato. Therefore, this proof-of-principle study demonstrates feasibility of CCD-reduced foodstuff to minimize ‘false-positive results’ in routine serum tests. Despite confirming low clinical relevance of CCD antibodies, we identified one patient with ambiguous in-vitro results, indicating need for further component-resolved diagnosis.