Component-resolved in vitro diagnosis in peach-allergic patients
The in vitro diagnosis of pollen-related food allergy presents low specificity and reproducibility with many conventional extracts. This can be improved using natural purified allergens, recombinant purified allergens, or both. We compared specific immunoglobulin (Ig) E determination (slgE), the bas...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of investigational allergology & clinical immunology 2009, Vol.19 (1), p.13-20 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 20 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 13 |
container_title | Journal of investigational allergology & clinical immunology |
container_volume | 19 |
creator | Gamboa, P M Sanz, M L Lombardero, M Barber, D Sánchez-Monje, R Goikoetxea, M J Antépara, I Ferrer, M Salcedo, G |
description | The in vitro diagnosis of pollen-related food allergy presents low specificity and reproducibility with many conventional extracts. This can be improved using natural purified allergens, recombinant purified allergens, or both.
We compared specific immunoglobulin (Ig) E determination (slgE), the basophil activation test (BAT), the histamine release test (HRT), and the cellular allergen stimulation test (CAST) using natural and recombinant allergens in the diagnosis of peach allergy.
Thirty-two peach allergic patients were studied. Skin prick tests were performed with commercial peach and extract with Mal d 1, nPru p 3, and profilin (nPho d 2). slgE, BAT, CAST, and HRT were determined using rPru p 3, rMal d 3, rBet v 1, rMal d 1, and rMal d 4.
Agreement between the techniques was good with all the allergens, except HRT with rMal d 1 and rMal d 4. With rPru p 3, slgE, CAST, BAT, and HRT showed sensitivity values of 88%, 81%, 72%, and 69% and specificity values of 100%, 93%, 97%, and 83%, respectively. In patients with systemic symptoms or contact urticaria, the values were 100%, 85%, 81%, and 81%. In patients with oral allergy syndrome, sensitivity to profilins or homologues of Bet v 1 was detected in 100% of the cases by all the techniques, except by HRT with rMal d 1, which detected 66% of the cases.
The use of single allergens in the in vitro diagnosis of peach allergy by specific IgE determination, BAT, and CAST offers high specificity and sensitivity, with better results than the HRT. |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_745636665</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>67014409</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-p241t-479586415e38a49789a3b4b0a06b73ddb601f09be027b1e47f70d9c7cff8c36f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp90EtLxDAUBeAsFGcc_QvSla4CSZPmsVOKLxhwo-uSNLdjJG1i0g747x1x3Lq6cPjOWdwTtKaEKqyJUCt0XsoHIUwKJc_Qiupacl3zNbpt45jiBNOMM5QY9uAqP1V7P-dYOW92Uyy-_EQJTP-OTQiQd76vkpn9oVUu0OlgQoHL492gt4f71_YJb18en9u7LU41pzPmUjdKcNoAU4ZrqbRhlltiiLCSOWcFoQPRFkgtLQUuB0mc7mU_DKpnYmAbdPO7m3L8XKDM3ehLDyGYCeJSOskbwYQQzUFe_yuFJJRzog_w6ggXO4LrUvajyV_d33fYN49CX3w</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>67014409</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Component-resolved in vitro diagnosis in peach-allergic patients</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>EZB Electronic Journals Library</source><creator>Gamboa, P M ; Sanz, M L ; Lombardero, M ; Barber, D ; Sánchez-Monje, R ; Goikoetxea, M J ; Antépara, I ; Ferrer, M ; Salcedo, G</creator><creatorcontrib>Gamboa, P M ; Sanz, M L ; Lombardero, M ; Barber, D ; Sánchez-Monje, R ; Goikoetxea, M J ; Antépara, I ; Ferrer, M ; Salcedo, G</creatorcontrib><description>The in vitro diagnosis of pollen-related food allergy presents low specificity and reproducibility with many conventional extracts. This can be improved using natural purified allergens, recombinant purified allergens, or both.
We compared specific immunoglobulin (Ig) E determination (slgE), the basophil activation test (BAT), the histamine release test (HRT), and the cellular allergen stimulation test (CAST) using natural and recombinant allergens in the diagnosis of peach allergy.
Thirty-two peach allergic patients were studied. Skin prick tests were performed with commercial peach and extract with Mal d 1, nPru p 3, and profilin (nPho d 2). slgE, BAT, CAST, and HRT were determined using rPru p 3, rMal d 3, rBet v 1, rMal d 1, and rMal d 4.
Agreement between the techniques was good with all the allergens, except HRT with rMal d 1 and rMal d 4. With rPru p 3, slgE, CAST, BAT, and HRT showed sensitivity values of 88%, 81%, 72%, and 69% and specificity values of 100%, 93%, 97%, and 83%, respectively. In patients with systemic symptoms or contact urticaria, the values were 100%, 85%, 81%, and 81%. In patients with oral allergy syndrome, sensitivity to profilins or homologues of Bet v 1 was detected in 100% of the cases by all the techniques, except by HRT with rMal d 1, which detected 66% of the cases.
The use of single allergens in the in vitro diagnosis of peach allergy by specific IgE determination, BAT, and CAST offers high specificity and sensitivity, with better results than the HRT.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1018-9068</identifier><identifier>PMID: 19274924</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Spain</publisher><subject>Adult ; Basophils - immunology ; Female ; Food Hypersensitivity - diagnosis ; Food Hypersensitivity - immunology ; Histamine Release - immunology ; Humans ; Immunoglobulin E - blood ; Prunus ; Prunus - immunology ; Skin Tests</subject><ispartof>Journal of investigational allergology & clinical immunology, 2009, Vol.19 (1), p.13-20</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,4010</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19274924$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Gamboa, P M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sanz, M L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lombardero, M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barber, D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sánchez-Monje, R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Goikoetxea, M J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Antépara, I</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ferrer, M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Salcedo, G</creatorcontrib><title>Component-resolved in vitro diagnosis in peach-allergic patients</title><title>Journal of investigational allergology & clinical immunology</title><addtitle>J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol</addtitle><description>The in vitro diagnosis of pollen-related food allergy presents low specificity and reproducibility with many conventional extracts. This can be improved using natural purified allergens, recombinant purified allergens, or both.
We compared specific immunoglobulin (Ig) E determination (slgE), the basophil activation test (BAT), the histamine release test (HRT), and the cellular allergen stimulation test (CAST) using natural and recombinant allergens in the diagnosis of peach allergy.
Thirty-two peach allergic patients were studied. Skin prick tests were performed with commercial peach and extract with Mal d 1, nPru p 3, and profilin (nPho d 2). slgE, BAT, CAST, and HRT were determined using rPru p 3, rMal d 3, rBet v 1, rMal d 1, and rMal d 4.
Agreement between the techniques was good with all the allergens, except HRT with rMal d 1 and rMal d 4. With rPru p 3, slgE, CAST, BAT, and HRT showed sensitivity values of 88%, 81%, 72%, and 69% and specificity values of 100%, 93%, 97%, and 83%, respectively. In patients with systemic symptoms or contact urticaria, the values were 100%, 85%, 81%, and 81%. In patients with oral allergy syndrome, sensitivity to profilins or homologues of Bet v 1 was detected in 100% of the cases by all the techniques, except by HRT with rMal d 1, which detected 66% of the cases.
The use of single allergens in the in vitro diagnosis of peach allergy by specific IgE determination, BAT, and CAST offers high specificity and sensitivity, with better results than the HRT.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Basophils - immunology</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Food Hypersensitivity - diagnosis</subject><subject>Food Hypersensitivity - immunology</subject><subject>Histamine Release - immunology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Immunoglobulin E - blood</subject><subject>Prunus</subject><subject>Prunus - immunology</subject><subject>Skin Tests</subject><issn>1018-9068</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2009</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp90EtLxDAUBeAsFGcc_QvSla4CSZPmsVOKLxhwo-uSNLdjJG1i0g747x1x3Lq6cPjOWdwTtKaEKqyJUCt0XsoHIUwKJc_Qiupacl3zNbpt45jiBNOMM5QY9uAqP1V7P-dYOW92Uyy-_EQJTP-OTQiQd76vkpn9oVUu0OlgQoHL492gt4f71_YJb18en9u7LU41pzPmUjdKcNoAU4ZrqbRhlltiiLCSOWcFoQPRFkgtLQUuB0mc7mU_DKpnYmAbdPO7m3L8XKDM3ehLDyGYCeJSOskbwYQQzUFe_yuFJJRzog_w6ggXO4LrUvajyV_d33fYN49CX3w</recordid><startdate>2009</startdate><enddate>2009</enddate><creator>Gamboa, P M</creator><creator>Sanz, M L</creator><creator>Lombardero, M</creator><creator>Barber, D</creator><creator>Sánchez-Monje, R</creator><creator>Goikoetxea, M J</creator><creator>Antépara, I</creator><creator>Ferrer, M</creator><creator>Salcedo, G</creator><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>H94</scope></search><sort><creationdate>2009</creationdate><title>Component-resolved in vitro diagnosis in peach-allergic patients</title><author>Gamboa, P M ; Sanz, M L ; Lombardero, M ; Barber, D ; Sánchez-Monje, R ; Goikoetxea, M J ; Antépara, I ; Ferrer, M ; Salcedo, G</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-p241t-479586415e38a49789a3b4b0a06b73ddb601f09be027b1e47f70d9c7cff8c36f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2009</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Basophils - immunology</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Food Hypersensitivity - diagnosis</topic><topic>Food Hypersensitivity - immunology</topic><topic>Histamine Release - immunology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Immunoglobulin E - blood</topic><topic>Prunus</topic><topic>Prunus - immunology</topic><topic>Skin Tests</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Gamboa, P M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sanz, M L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lombardero, M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barber, D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sánchez-Monje, R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Goikoetxea, M J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Antépara, I</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ferrer, M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Salcedo, G</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Journal of investigational allergology & clinical immunology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Gamboa, P M</au><au>Sanz, M L</au><au>Lombardero, M</au><au>Barber, D</au><au>Sánchez-Monje, R</au><au>Goikoetxea, M J</au><au>Antépara, I</au><au>Ferrer, M</au><au>Salcedo, G</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Component-resolved in vitro diagnosis in peach-allergic patients</atitle><jtitle>Journal of investigational allergology & clinical immunology</jtitle><addtitle>J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol</addtitle><date>2009</date><risdate>2009</risdate><volume>19</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>13</spage><epage>20</epage><pages>13-20</pages><issn>1018-9068</issn><abstract>The in vitro diagnosis of pollen-related food allergy presents low specificity and reproducibility with many conventional extracts. This can be improved using natural purified allergens, recombinant purified allergens, or both.
We compared specific immunoglobulin (Ig) E determination (slgE), the basophil activation test (BAT), the histamine release test (HRT), and the cellular allergen stimulation test (CAST) using natural and recombinant allergens in the diagnosis of peach allergy.
Thirty-two peach allergic patients were studied. Skin prick tests were performed with commercial peach and extract with Mal d 1, nPru p 3, and profilin (nPho d 2). slgE, BAT, CAST, and HRT were determined using rPru p 3, rMal d 3, rBet v 1, rMal d 1, and rMal d 4.
Agreement between the techniques was good with all the allergens, except HRT with rMal d 1 and rMal d 4. With rPru p 3, slgE, CAST, BAT, and HRT showed sensitivity values of 88%, 81%, 72%, and 69% and specificity values of 100%, 93%, 97%, and 83%, respectively. In patients with systemic symptoms or contact urticaria, the values were 100%, 85%, 81%, and 81%. In patients with oral allergy syndrome, sensitivity to profilins or homologues of Bet v 1 was detected in 100% of the cases by all the techniques, except by HRT with rMal d 1, which detected 66% of the cases.
The use of single allergens in the in vitro diagnosis of peach allergy by specific IgE determination, BAT, and CAST offers high specificity and sensitivity, with better results than the HRT.</abstract><cop>Spain</cop><pmid>19274924</pmid><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1018-9068 |
ispartof | Journal of investigational allergology & clinical immunology, 2009, Vol.19 (1), p.13-20 |
issn | 1018-9068 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_745636665 |
source | MEDLINE; EZB Electronic Journals Library |
subjects | Adult Basophils - immunology Female Food Hypersensitivity - diagnosis Food Hypersensitivity - immunology Histamine Release - immunology Humans Immunoglobulin E - blood Prunus Prunus - immunology Skin Tests |
title | Component-resolved in vitro diagnosis in peach-allergic patients |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-17T13%3A55%3A02IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Component-resolved%20in%20vitro%20diagnosis%20in%20peach-allergic%20patients&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20investigational%20allergology%20&%20clinical%20immunology&rft.au=Gamboa,%20P%20M&rft.date=2009&rft.volume=19&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=13&rft.epage=20&rft.pages=13-20&rft.issn=1018-9068&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E67014409%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=67014409&rft_id=info:pmid/19274924&rfr_iscdi=true |