BACKGROUND: The use of recombinant allergens for the diagnosis and immunotherapy of allergy may offer several advantages over allergen extracts. OBJECTIVE: To produce recombinant dog allergens Can f 1 and Can f 2 in Pichia pastoris yeast and to assess their suitability for the diagnosis of dog allergy. METHODS: Clinically diagnosed dog-allergic patients' and healthy non-atopic dog owners' reactivities against recombinant Can f 1 and Can f 2 and commercial dog epithelial extract were studied by a panel of methods including skin prick test (SPT), ELISA and IgE immunoblotting. RESULTS: Recombinant Can f 1 and Can f 2 were found immunologically functional: they bound dog-allergic patients' IgE in immunoblotting and inhibited specifically the binding of IgE to their natural counterparts in the dog allergen extract. Moreover, patients' IgE reactivity in immunoblotting to natural Can f 1 and their SPT with the recombinant allergen were perfectly concordant (phi coefficient 1.0, P<0.001). The concordance was slightly lower with recombinant Can f 2 (phi coefficient 0.92, P<0.001). A lower number of dog-allergic patients, 52%, reacted against Can f 1 than previously reported. About one-third of the patients reacted to Can f 2. In immunoblotting, the highest prevalence of reactivity, 60%, was directed to an 18 kDa component. Aminoterminal sequencing showed this to be a previously unidentified allergenic protein. CONCLUSIONS: The recombinant allergens can be used reliably to identify Can f 1 and Can f 2-sensitized individuals. However, the two allergens are insufficient as reagents for diagnosing dog allergy.
BACKGROUND: The use of recombinant allergens for the diagnosis and immunotherapy of allergy may offer several advantages over allergen extracts. OBJECTIVE: To produce recombinant dog allergens Can f 1 and Can f 2 in Pichia pastorisyeast and to assess their suitability for the diagnosis of dogallergy. METHODS: Clinically diagnosed dog-allergicpatients' and healthy non-atopic dog owners' reactivities against recombinant Can f 1 and Can f 2 and commercial dog epithelial extract were studied by a panel of methods including skin prick test (SPT), ELISA and IgE immunoblotting. RESULTS: Recombinant Can f 1 and Can f 2 were found immunologically functional: they bound dog-allergicpatients' IgE in immunoblotting and inhibited specifically the binding of IgE to their natural counterparts in the dog allergen extract. Moreover, patients' IgE reactivity in immunoblotting to natural Can f 1 and their SPT with the recombinant allergen were perfectly concordant (phi coefficient 1.0, P<0.001). The concordance was slightly lower with recombinant Can f 2 (phi coefficient 0.92, P<0.001). A lower number of dog-allergicpatients, 52%, reacted against Can f 1 than previously reported. About one-third of the patients reacted to Can f 2. In immunoblotting, the highest prevalence of reactivity, 60%, was directed to an 18 kDa component. Aminoterminal sequencing showed this to be a previously unidentified allergenic protein. CONCLUSIONS: The recombinant allergens can be used reliably to identify Can f 1 and Can f 2-sensitized individuals. However, the two allergens are insufficient as reagents for diagnosing dogallergy.
Authors: Anu K Immonen; Antti H Taivainen; Ale T O Närvänen; Tuure T Kinnunen; Soili A Saarelainen; Marja A Rytkönen-Nissinen; Tuomas I Virtanen Journal: Immunology Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 7.397
Authors: Sarah K Wise; Sandra Y Lin; Elina Toskala; Richard R Orlandi; Cezmi A Akdis; Jeremiah A Alt; Antoine Azar; Fuad M Baroody; Claus Bachert; G Walter Canonica; Thomas Chacko; Cemal Cingi; Giorgio Ciprandi; Jacquelynne Corey; Linda S Cox; Peter Socrates Creticos; Adnan Custovic; Cecelia Damask; Adam DeConde; John M DelGaudio; Charles S Ebert; Jean Anderson Eloy; Carrie E Flanagan; Wytske J Fokkens; Christine Franzese; Jan Gosepath; Ashleigh Halderman; Robert G Hamilton; Hans Jürgen Hoffman; Jens M Hohlfeld; Steven M Houser; Peter H Hwang; Cristoforo Incorvaia; Deborah Jarvis; Ayesha N Khalid; Maritta Kilpeläinen; Todd T Kingdom; Helene Krouse; Desiree Larenas-Linnemann; Adrienne M Laury; Stella E Lee; Joshua M Levy; Amber U Luong; Bradley F Marple; Edward D McCoul; K Christopher McMains; Erik Melén; James W Mims; Gianna Moscato; Joaquim Mullol; Harold S Nelson; Monica Patadia; Ruby Pawankar; Oliver Pfaar; Michael P Platt; William Reisacher; Carmen Rondón; Luke Rudmik; Matthew Ryan; Joaquin Sastre; Rodney J Schlosser; Russell A Settipane; Hemant P Sharma; Aziz Sheikh; Timothy L Smith; Pongsakorn Tantilipikorn; Jody R Tversky; Maria C Veling; De Yun Wang; Marit Westman; Magnus Wickman; Mark Zacharek Journal: Int Forum Allergy Rhinol Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 3.858
Authors: Jay Portnoy; Kevin Kennedy; James Sublett; Wanda Phipatanakul; Elizabeth Matsui; Charles Barnes; Carl Grimes; J David Miller; James M Seltzer; P Brock Williams; Jonathan A Bernstein; David I Bernstein; Joann Blessing-Moore; Linda Cox; David A Khan; David M Lang; Richard A Nicklas; John Oppenheimer Journal: Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 6.347
Authors: Marcie H Moehnke; Terumi Midoro-Horiuti; Randall M Goldblum; Christopher M Kearney Journal: Biotechnol Lett Date: 2008-02-13 Impact factor: 2.461
Authors: Soili A Saarelainen; Tuure T Kinnunen; Cécile Buhot; Ale T O Närvänen; Anu K Kauppinen; Marja A Rytkönen-Nissinen; Bernard Maillere; Tuomas I Virtanen Journal: Immunology Date: 2007-10-16 Impact factor: 7.397
Authors: Marja Rytkönen-Nissinen; Soili Saarelainen; Jukka Randell; Jukka Häyrinen; Nisse Kalkkinen; Tuomas Virtanen Journal: Allergy Asthma Immunol Res Date: 2015-03-05 Impact factor: 5.764
Authors: N Polovic; K Wadén; J Binnmyr; C Hamsten; R Grönneberg; C Palmberg; N Milcic-Matic; T Bergman; H Grönlund; M van Hage Journal: Allergy Date: 2013-03-07 Impact factor: 13.146