Literature DB >> 21829031

Pru p 3-sensitised Italian peach-allergic patients are less likely to develop severe symptoms when also presenting IgE antibodies to Pru p 1 and Pru p 4.

Elide A Pastorello1, Laura Farioli, Valerio Pravettoni, Joseph Scibilia, Ambra Mascheri, Linda Borgonovo, Marta Piantanida, Laura Primavesi, Chrysi Stafylaraki, Sara Pasqualetti, Jan Schroeder, Michele Nichelatti, Alessandro Marocchi.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The roles played by different peach allergens with respect to symptom severity have not been completely ascertained. We have evaluated the diagnostic efficacy of peach recombinant allergens ImmunoCAP compared to peach in the identification of subjects at an increased risk for severe reactions to peaches.
METHODS: 148 peach-allergic patients were divided based on their symptom severity into 2 groups: mild oral allergy syndrome (OAS) and severe OAS. Anti-rPru p 1, 3 and 4 IgE levels were measured. Statistical analyses were carried out using parametric and non-parametric tests.
RESULTS: anti-rPru p 1 and anti-rPru p 4 IgE levels were significantly higher in patients with mild OAS than in patients with severe OAS (p = 0.0001); in contrast, anti-rPru p 3 IgE levels were significantly higher in patients with severe OAS than in patients with mild OAS (p < 0.00005). Moreover, we found that any unitary increase in anti-rPru p 1 IgE values corresponded to a 2.48% reduction in the odds of having severe OAS (p = 0.048), whereas any unitary increase in anti-rPru p 3 IgE values corresponded to a 9.02% increase in the probability of having severe OAS (p = 0.001). Unexpectedly, we found that patients positive to rPru p 3 as well as rPru p 1 and 4 demonstrated a significant reduction of the odds of developing severe symptoms than those positive to rPru p 3 alone. Anti-rPru p 3 IgE levels were a significantly better indicator than anti-peach IgE values (p = 0.016) of patients with the highest risk for severe OAS. A cutoff of 2.69 kUA/l for anti-rPru p 3 IgE values better discriminated peach-allergic patients at a higher risk for symptoms.
CONCLUSIONS: Italian patients with positive anti-rPru p 1, 4 and 3 IgE levels seemed less likely to experience the clinical effects of high anti-rPru p 3 IgE values.
Copyright © 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21829031     DOI: 10.1159/000324440

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Arch Allergy Immunol        ISSN: 1018-2438            Impact factor:   2.749


  20 in total

1.  [Double sensitization to PR10 and PR-14 proteins].

Authors:  L Vanstreels; G Balakirski; S Röseler; G Wurpts; M Megahed; J M Baron; H F Merk
Journal:  Hautarzt       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 0.751

2.  Letter to the Authors Concerning the Published Manuscript by Rial and Sastre: Food Allergies Caused by Allergenic Lipid Transfer Proteins: What Is Behind the Geographic Restriction?

Authors:  Margaretha A Faber; Ine I Decuyper; Athina L Van Gasse; Vito Sabato; Margo M Hagendorens; Didier G Ebo
Journal:  Curr Allergy Asthma Rep       Date:  2018-10-25       Impact factor: 4.806

3.  IL-33/s-ST2 ratio, systemic symptoms, and basophil activation in Pru p 3-sensitized allergic patients.

Authors:  Carina G Uasuf; Caterina Di Sano; Sebastiano Gangemi; Giuseppe Albeggiani; Diego Cigna; Paola Dino; Ignazio Brusca; Mark Gjomarkaj; Elisabetta Pace
Journal:  Inflamm Res       Date:  2018-05-17       Impact factor: 4.575

4.  Non-specific lipid-transfer proteins: Allergen structure and function, cross-reactivity, sensitization, and epidemiology.

Authors:  Isabel J Skypala; Ricardo Asero; Domingo Barber; Lorenzo Cecchi; Arazeli Diaz Perales; Karin Hoffmann-Sommergruber; Elide A Pastorello; Ines Swoboda; Joan Bartra; Didier G Ebo; Margaretha A Faber; Montserrat Fernández-Rivas; Francesca Gomez; Anastasios P Konstantinopoulos; Olga Luengo; Ronald van Ree; Enrico Scala; Stephen J Till
Journal:  Clin Transl Allergy       Date:  2021-05-18       Impact factor: 5.871

Review 5.  Vaccines for allergy.

Authors:  Birgit Linhart; Rudolf Valenta
Journal:  Curr Opin Immunol       Date:  2012-04-20       Impact factor: 7.486

Review 6.  Guidelines for the use and interpretation of diagnostic methods in adult food allergy.

Authors:  Donatella Macchia; Giovanni Melioli; Valerio Pravettoni; Eleonora Nucera; Marta Piantanida; Marco Caminati; Corrado Campochiaro; Mona-Rita Yacoub; Domenico Schiavino; Roberto Paganelli; Mario Di Gioacchino
Journal:  Clin Mol Allergy       Date:  2015-10-05

7.  A unique mutation in a MYB gene cosegregates with the nectarine phenotype in peach.

Authors:  Elisa Vendramin; Giorgio Pea; Luca Dondini; Igor Pacheco; Maria Teresa Dettori; Laura Gazza; Simone Scalabrin; Francesco Strozzi; Stefano Tartarini; Daniele Bassi; Ignazio Verde; Laura Rossini
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-03-03       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  High prevalence of lipid transfer protein sensitization in apple allergic patients with systemic symptoms.

Authors:  Francisca Gomez; Ana Aranda; Paloma Campo; Araceli Diaz-Perales; Natalia Blanca-Lopez; James Perkins; Maria Garrido; Miguel Blanca; Cristobalina Mayorga; Maria José Torres
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-09-11       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Different co-sensitizations could determine different risk assessment in peach allergy? Evaluation of an anaphylactic biomarker in Pru p 3 positive patients.

Authors:  Carina Gabriela Uasuf; Danilo Villalta; Maria Elisabetta Conte; Caterina Di Sano; Maria Barrale; Vincenzo Cantisano; Elisabetta Pace; Mark Gjomarkaj; Sebastiano Gangemi; Ignazio Brusca
Journal:  Clin Mol Allergy       Date:  2015-12-02

Review 10.  Diagnosing allergic sensitizations in the third millennium: why clinicians should know allergen molecule structures.

Authors:  C Alessandri; R Ferrara; M L Bernardi; D Zennaro; L Tuppo; I Giangrieco; M Tamburrini; A Mari; M A Ciardiello
Journal:  Clin Transl Allergy       Date:  2017-07-17       Impact factor: 5.871

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.