BACKGROUND: Assessment of allergenicity of foods is important for allergic consumers and regulators. Immunoassays to measure major food allergens are widely applied, often giving variable results. Using the major apple allergen Mal d 1 as a model, we aimed to establish at the molecular level why different immunoassays for assessing allergenicity of apple cultivars produce conflicting outcomes. METHODS: Mal d 1 was measured in 53 cultivars from Italy and 35 from The Netherlands, using four different immunoassays. Purified Mal d 1 standards were molecularly characterized by size-exclusion chromatography (SEC) and mass spectrometry (MS). RESULTS: Three immunoassays using an identical standard gave similar results. Minor differences in sample preparation already resulted in significant loss of allergenicity. The fourth assay, using a different Mal d 1 standard, gave 10- to 100-fold lower outcomes. By SEC, this standard was shown to be almost fully aggregated. This aggregation was accompanied by a decrease of the mass of the Mal d 1 molecule by approximately 1 kDa as analyzed by MS. The deviating immunoassay was shown to selectively recognize this aggregated form of Mal d 1, whereas the other three assays, including the one based on IgE antibody recognition, preferentially bound non-aggregated allergen. CONCLUSIONS: Variable and poorly controllable major allergen modification in both extracts and standards hamper accurate allergenicity assessments of fruits.
BACKGROUND: Assessment of allergenicity of foods is important for allergic consumers and regulators. Immunoassays to measure major food allergens are widely applied, often giving variable results. Using the major apple allergen Mal d 1 as a model, we aimed to establish at the molecular level why different immunoassays for assessing allergenicity of apple cultivars produce conflicting outcomes. METHODS: Mal d 1 was measured in 53 cultivars from Italy and 35 from The Netherlands, using four different immunoassays. Purified Mal d 1 standards were molecularly characterized by size-exclusion chromatography (SEC) and mass spectrometry (MS). RESULTS: Three immunoassays using an identical standard gave similar results. Minor differences in sample preparation already resulted in significant loss of allergenicity. The fourth assay, using a different Mal d 1 standard, gave 10- to 100-fold lower outcomes. By SEC, this standard was shown to be almost fully aggregated. This aggregation was accompanied by a decrease of the mass of the Mal d 1 molecule by approximately 1 kDa as analyzed by MS. The deviating immunoassay was shown to selectively recognize this aggregated form of Mal d 1, whereas the other three assays, including the one based on IgE antibody recognition, preferentially bound non-aggregated allergen. CONCLUSIONS: Variable and poorly controllable major allergen modification in both extracts and standards hamper accurate allergenicity assessments of fruits.
Authors: Julia A H Kaeswurm; Leonie V Straub; Alexandra Klußmann; Jens Brockmeyer; Maria Buchweitz Journal: J Agric Food Chem Date: 2022-09-08 Impact factor: 5.895
Authors: Kathrin Elisabeth Paulus; Vera Mahler; Martin Pabst; Karl-Heinz Kogel; Friedrich Altmann; Uwe Sonnewald Journal: Front Plant Sci Date: 2011-08-27 Impact factor: 5.753
Authors: Maria R Strobl; Ute Vollmann; Julia Eckl-Dorna; Astrid Radakovics; Verena Ibl; Madeleine Schnurer; Martin Brenner; Georgi Dermendjiev; Wolfram Weckwerth; Michael Neumüller; Florian Frommlet; Hilal Demir; Merima Bublin; Christian Müller; Barbara Bohle Journal: Clin Transl Allergy Date: 2022-08 Impact factor: 5.657
Authors: Aleksandra Siekierzynska; Dorota Piasecka-Kwiatkowska; Aleksander Myszka; Marta Burzynska; Barbara Sozanska; Tomasz Sozanski Journal: Clin Transl Allergy Date: 2021-06-02 Impact factor: 5.871
Authors: Giulia Pagliarani; Roberta Paris; Paul Arens; Stefano Tartarini; Giampaolo Ricci; Marinus M J Smulders; W Eric van de Weg Journal: BMC Plant Biol Date: 2013-03-23 Impact factor: 4.215
Authors: B Nothegger; N Reider; C E Covaciu; V Cova; L Ahammer; R Eidelpes; J Unterhauser; S Platzgummer; M Tollinger; T Letschka; K Eisendle Journal: J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol Date: 2020-02-16 Impact factor: 6.166