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: Kaulfürst-Soboll, Heidi
Mertens, Melanie
Brehler, Randolf
Schaewen, Antje
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.