Literature DB >> 25651402

Comparison of six commercial ELISA kits for their specificity and sensitivity in detecting different major peanut allergens.

Shyamali Jayasena1, Mieke Smits, Daniëlle Fiechter, Aard de Jong, Julie Nordlee, Joe Baumert, Steve L Taylor, Raymond H Pieters, Stef J Koppelman.   

Abstract

Six commercial peanut enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay kits were assessed for their ability to recover peanut from the standard reference material 2387 peanut butter and also for their specificity in detecting four major peanut allergens, Ara h 1, Ara h 2, Ara h 3, and Ara h 6. The percentage recovery of peanut from peanut butter differed across different kits as well as at different sample concentrations. The highest recovery was observed with the Romer and R-Biopharm kits, while four other kits were found to underestimate the protein content of the reference peanut butter samples. Five of the kits were most sensitive in detecting Ara h 3 followed by Ara h 1, while hardly recognizing Ara h 2 and Ara h 6. The other kit showed the highest sensitivity to Ara h 2 and Ara h 6, while Ara h 1 and Ara h 3 were poorly recognized. Although Ara h 2 and Ara h 6 are known to be heat stable and more potent allergens, antisera specific to any of these four peanut proteins/allergens may serve as good markers for the detection of peanut residues.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Ara h 1; Ara h 2; Ara h 3; Ara h 6; ELISA; allergens; detection; immunoassay; peanut

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25651402     DOI: 10.1021/jf504741t

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Agric Food Chem        ISSN: 0021-8561            Impact factor:   5.279


  7 in total

Review 1.  Environmental Food Exposure: What Is the Risk of Clinical Reactivity From Cross-Contact and What Is the Risk of Sensitization.

Authors:  William J Sheehan; Steve L Taylor; Wanda Phipatanakul; Helen A Brough
Journal:  J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract       Date:  2018 Nov - Dec

2.  Airborne protein concentration: a key metric for type 1 allergy risk assessment-in home measurement challenges and considerations.

Authors:  Liz Tulum; Zoë Deag; Matthew Brown; Annette Furniss; Lynn Meech; Anja Lalljie; Stella Cochrane
Journal:  Clin Transl Allergy       Date:  2018-03-26       Impact factor: 5.871

3.  Development of a Sandwich Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay for Detection and Quantification of Clam Residues in Food Products.

Authors:  Stef J Koppelman; Ashley L Lardizabal; Lynn Niemann; Joe L Baumert; Steve L Taylor
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2021-03-19       Impact factor: 3.411

4.  A microfluidic diagnostic device with air plug-in valves for the simultaneous genetic detection of various food allergens.

Authors:  Daigo Natsuhara; Sae Misawa; Ryogo Saito; Koki Shirai; Shunya Okamoto; Moeto Nagai; Masashi Kitamura; Takayuki Shibata
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-07-27       Impact factor: 4.996

5.  Rapid Detection of Food Allergens by Microfluidics ELISA-Based Optical Sensor.

Authors:  Xuan Weng; Gautam Gaur; Suresh Neethirajan
Journal:  Biosensors (Basel)       Date:  2016-06-07

Review 6.  Food allergen detection by mass spectrometry: the role of systems biology.

Authors:  Derek Croote; Stephen R Quake
Journal:  NPJ Syst Biol Appl       Date:  2016-09-29

7.  Release of Major Peanut Allergens from Their Matrix under Various pH and Simulated Saliva Conditions-Ara h2 and Ara h6 Are Readily Bio-Accessible.

Authors:  Stef J Koppelman; Mieke Smits; Monic Tomassen; Govardus A H de Jong; Joe Baumert; Steve L Taylor; Renger Witkamp; Robert Jan Veldman; Raymond Pieters; Harry Wichers
Journal:  Nutrients       Date:  2018-09-11       Impact factor: 5.717

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.