M Focke1, K Marth, S Flicker, R Valenta. 1. Christian Doppler Laboratory for Allergy Research, Department of Pathophysiology, Center for Physiology and Pathophysiology, Vienna General Hospital, Medical University of Vienna, Austria. margarete.focke-tejkl@meduniwien.ac.at
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The diagnosis and specific immunotherapy of allergy is currently performed with allergen extracts prepared from natural allergen sources. OBJECTIVE: To analyse commercial timothy grass pollen allergen extracts used for in vivo diagnosis regarding their qualitative and quantitative allergen composition and in vivo biological activity. METHODS: Antibodies specific for eight timothy grass pollen allergens (Phl p 1, Phl p 2, Phl p 4, Phl p 5, Phl p 6, Phl p 7, Phl p 12, Phl p 13) were used to detect these allergens in timothy grass pollen extracts from four manufacturers by immunoblotting. ELISA assays were developed and used to quantify the three major allergens (Phl p 1, Phl p 2, Phl p 5) in the extracts. The magnitude of skin responses to the four extracts was studied by skin prick testing in 10 grass pollen-allergic patients. RESULTS: The allergen extracts showed broad variations in protein compositions and amounts (24.1-197.7 microg/mL extract). Several allergens could not be detected in certain extracts or appeared degraded. A considerable variability regarding the contents of major allergens was found (Phl p 1: 32-384 ng/mL; Phl p 2: 1128-6530 ng/mL, Phl p 5: 40-793 ng/mL). Heterogeneous skin test results were obtained with the extracts in grass pollen-allergic patients. CONCLUSIONS: Timothy grass pollen extracts from different manufacturers exhibit a considerable heterogeneity regarding the presence of individual allergens and hence yield varying in vivo test results. Problems related to the use of natural grass pollen allergen extracts may be circumvented by using defined recombinant grass pollen allergens.
BACKGROUND: The diagnosis and specific immunotherapy of allergy is currently performed with allergen extracts prepared from natural allergen sources. OBJECTIVE: To analyse commercial timothy grass pollen allergen extracts used for in vivo diagnosis regarding their qualitative and quantitative allergen composition and in vivo biological activity. METHODS: Antibodies specific for eight timothy grass pollen allergens (Phl p 1, Phl p 2, Phl p 4, Phl p 5, Phl p 6, Phl p 7, Phl p 12, Phl p 13) were used to detect these allergens in timothy grass pollen extracts from four manufacturers by immunoblotting. ELISA assays were developed and used to quantify the three major allergens (Phl p 1, Phl p 2, Phl p 5) in the extracts. The magnitude of skin responses to the four extracts was studied by skin prick testing in 10 grass pollen-allergicpatients. RESULTS: The allergen extracts showed broad variations in protein compositions and amounts (24.1-197.7 microg/mL extract). Several allergens could not be detected in certain extracts or appeared degraded. A considerable variability regarding the contents of major allergens was found (Phl p 1: 32-384 ng/mL; Phl p 2: 1128-6530 ng/mL, Phl p 5: 40-793 ng/mL). Heterogeneous skin test results were obtained with the extracts in grass pollen-allergicpatients. CONCLUSIONS:Timothy grass pollen extracts from different manufacturers exhibit a considerable heterogeneity regarding the presence of individual allergens and hence yield varying in vivo test results. Problems related to the use of natural grass pollen allergen extracts may be circumvented by using defined recombinant grass pollen allergens.
Authors: Anna Lukschal; Jan Fuhrmann; Juryj Sobanov; Dirk Neumann; Julia Wallmann; Regina Knittelfelder; Wolfgang Hemmer; Otto Scheiner; Monique Vogel; Beda M Stadler; Erika Jensen-Jarolim; Krisztina Szalai Journal: Open Allergy J Date: 2011-05-23
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: Véronique Schulten; April Frazier; Agustin Calatroni; Meyer Kattan; Leonard B Bacharier; George T O'Connor; Megan T Sandel; Robert A Wood; Lisa M Wheatley; Alkis Togias; Cynthia M Visness; Amy Dresen; James E Gern; Alessandro Sette Journal: Clin Exp Allergy Date: 2019-05-29 Impact factor: 5.018
Authors: Katharina Marth; Isabella Breyer; Margarete Focke-Tejkl; Katharina Blatt; Mohamed H Shamji; Janice Layhadi; Anna Gieras; Ines Swoboda; Domen Zafred; Walter Keller; Peter Valent; Stephen R Durham; Rudolf Valenta Journal: J Immunol Date: 2013-02-25 Impact factor: 5.422