Literature DB >> 31705686

Peptide size profile and residual immunogenic milk protein or peptide content in extensively hydrolyzed infant formulas.

Sophie Nutten1, Françoise Maynard2, Anette Järvi1, Andreas Rytz3, Peter J Simons4, Ralf G Heine1, Martinas Kuslys1.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31705686      PMCID: PMC7318342          DOI: 10.1111/all.14098

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Allergy        ISSN: 0105-4538            Impact factor:   13.146


× No keyword cloud information.
To the Editor, Current clinical food allergy guidelines recommend an extensively hydrolyzed formula (EHF) as the first‐line treatment in nonbreastfed infants with cow's milk protein allergy (CMPA).1, 2 This recommendation is based on the assumption that EHF is tolerated by at least 90% of infants with CMPA.3 Several studies have reported allergic reactions to EHF.4, 5 This includes the Dutch EuroPrevall cohort study which achieved adequate symptom control in <50% of EHF‐treated infants with CMPA.4 We hypothesized that the observed residual allergenicity was due to insufficient milk protein hydrolysis and/or contamination with milk allergens.3, 6 In order to better understand the observed variability in clinical efficacy, we aimed to characterize a representative sample of marketed EHF with regard to their peptide molecular weight (MW) profile, content of residual immunogenic cow's milk proteins or peptides, and in vitro allergenicity. Between 2014 and 2018, we collected samples (cans) of 76 commercially available whey‐ and casein‐based EHF (EHF‐W and EHF‐C) products positioned for the management of CMPA, from 9 manufacturers. To determine possible between‐ and within‐batch variation, samples from different production batches, as well as multiple cans of the same batch, were analyzed when available; Table S1. Product samples were coded and blinded for analysis. Peptide size distribution analysis was performed by size‐exclusion, high‐pressure liquid chromatography. As a surrogate marker for potential allergenicity, an arbitrary cutoff of >1200 Da was chosen (equivalent to the MW of 10‐12 amino acids). Immunogenic peptides or proteins (IPP) derived from bovine beta‐lactoglobulin (BLG) and casein were quantified by high‐sensitivity ELISA (Euroclone Spa, Pero, Italy). In addition, a subset of 9 EHF products with a range of percentages of peptides with a MW > 1200 Da was assessed for residual BLG‐induced in vitro allergenicity, using a humanized rat basophilic leukemia cell degranulation assay. This assay was developed with IgE directed against “allergenic” immunodominant regions/epitopes on bovine BLG, also recognized by serum IgE from CMPA infants.7 A detailed description of the laboratory methods is provided in Table S2. Characterization of the MW profiles found that 89%‐100% of EHF peptides were <2400 Da; Table 1. Three clusters were observed for the content of IPP with a MW > 1200 Da: <5% (Group 1; n = 14), 5%‐15% (Group 2; n = 12), and > 15% (Group 3; n = 7); Figure 1. All EHF‐C analyzed were in Group 1. There was variability in the content of peptides <240 Da (6 to 38%) and <600 Da (37 to 88%); Table 1. For some products (W1, W21, and C12), significant MW profile differences were noticed between or within batches; Table S3.
Table 1

Number of analyzed samples (n) per product, peptide MW distribution (median, maximum deviation from the median), residual BLG‐ and casein‐derived IPP contents (median, maximum deviation from median) and, where available, BLG‐induced in vitro allergenicity (one sample analyzed per product). The table separates EHF‐W and EHF‐C categories. Within each category, samples were ordered by decreasing residual BLG content

ProductCoding n Peptide MW distribution [%]BLG and Casein [mg/kg]BLG allergenicity [µg/g]
<240 Da<600 Da<1200 Da<2400 Da MW Max Dev. >1200 DaBLG Median BLG Max Dev. Casein Median Casein Max Dev.
Friso PEP W136386791383320.3020.290.50.6747
Picot® Pepti Junior®/Croissance 3W43133769914310.277.57<0.20.11465
Picot® Pepti Junior 2W32133967893330.210.10<0.20.0 
Picot® Pepti Junior 1W24123768914320.200.090.30.11881
Pepti Junior® W20117497895 220.06 <0.2  
Aptamil® Pepti JuniorW16116497995 210.06 <0.2  
Nutrilon® 1 Allergy Digestive CareW18115487895 220.05 <0.2  
Aptamil™ Pepti 1W54226088982120.050.03<0.20.0626
Nutrilon™ Pepti 2W19122639098 100.05 <0.2  
Nutrilon® Pepti 1 ProExpertW144226089981110.040.02<0.20.0 
Aptamil™ Pepti 2W6122628998 110.04 <0.2  
Nutrilon™ 1 Allergy CareW11122608898 120.04 <0.2  
Nutrilon™ 2 Allergy CareW12122618998 110.04 <0.2  
Nutrilon® Pepti 2 ProExpertW154236088981120.040.00<0.20.0 
Nutrilon Pepti 1W134236189982110.030.03<0.20.0425
Aptamil® Allerpro™ 1 Gold+W94225589982110.030.02<0.20.0 
Pepticate® W2142360909826100.030.01<0.20.0272
Aptamil® Allerpro™ 2 Gold+W103245789982110.020.02<0.20.0 
Galliagene® W17122628998 11<0.01 <0.2  
Althéra® W7634869910041<0.010.01<0.20.0<10.8
Alfaré® W8534869910031<0.010.01<0.20.0 
Damira® 2000C12320779799730.060.050.60.4 
Nutriben® Hidrolizada 1C21187897100 30.05 <0.2  
Allernova ARC11219779799130.020.01<0.20.0 
Friso Pep ACC3122789799 3<0.01 <0.2  
Nutramigen® Lipil 1C7131859798 30.01 <0.2  
Similac® AlimentumC133888979923<0.010.00<0.20.0<10.8
NutramigenC423483989902<0.010.00<0.20.0<10.8
Nutramigen LGG® C5136879899 2<0.01 <0.2  
Nutramigen LGG® 1C6132879899 2<0.01 <0.2  
Pregestimil LipilC8133879899 2<0.01 <0.2  
Nutramigen LGG® 2C9133869899 2<0.01 <0.2  
Nutramigen® Lipil 2C10134879798 3<0.01 <0.2  
Figure 1

Percentage of peptides with MW > 1200 Da. EHF‐W and EHF‐C products are depicted in dark gray and light gray bars, respectively. The black lines represent the 5% and 15% threshold. Three EHF groups were identified according to the fraction of peptides with a MW > 1200 Da

Number of analyzed samples (n) per product, peptide MW distribution (median, maximum deviation from the median), residual BLG‐ and casein‐derived IPP contents (median, maximum deviation from median) and, where available, BLG‐induced in vitro allergenicity (one sample analyzed per product). The table separates EHF‐W and EHF‐C categories. Within each category, samples were ordered by decreasing residual BLG content Percentage of peptides with MW > 1200 Da. EHF‐W and EHF‐C products are depicted in dark gray and light gray bars, respectively. The black lines represent the 5% and 15% threshold. Three EHF groups were identified according to the fraction of peptides with a MW > 1200 Da Residual BLG‐derived IPP were detected in 4 of 12 (33%) EHF‐C and 18 of 21 (86%) EHF‐W products. Four EHF‐W products (W1, W2, W3, and W4) showed residual BLGIPP exceeding the limit of quantification (0.01mg/kg) by 20‐fold, including one product with an IPP content of >2000 times the quantification limit; Table 1. One of 12 (8%) and 2 of 21 (10%) EHF‐C and EHF‐W tested positive for casein‐derived IPP, respectively. Two samples showed significant between‐ and within‐batch variation for both casein‐ and BLGIPP contents (C12 and W1). Three further EHF‐W products (W2, W3, and W4) displayed noticeable between‐ and within‐batch variation for residual BLGIPP content; Figure S1. A positive relationship between residual BLGIPP content and the percentage of peptides >1200 Da was found (R 2 = 0.65); Figure S2A. An inverse association was demonstrated for peptides with a MW < 240 Da (R 2 = 0.89); data not shown. For the subset of 9 EHF (2 EHF‐C and 7 EHF‐W), BLG‐induced RBL cell degranulation levels varied depending on the content of peptides >1200 Da; Table 1. No BLG‐induced in vitro allergenicity was detected for the 3 samples in Group 1 (C1, C4, and W7). The remaining 6 EHF‐W in Groups 2 and 3 induced a dose‐dependent degranulation with a calculated residual allergenicity ranging from 272 to 1881 µg BLG/g protein. These exploratory data suggest a close relationship between residual BLG‐induced in vitro allergenicity and the content of peptides with a MW > 1200 Da (R2 = 0.79); Figure S2B. We characterized the physicochemical profiles of a representative sample of marketed EHF‐W and EHF‐C products. There was significant variability in the MW profile of peptides, residual BLG‐ and casein‐IPP contents, and in vitro allergenicity, with significant batch‐to‐batch or within‐batch variation observed for some products. These findings are in keeping with earlier studies demonstrating significant heterogeneity among marketed EHF regarding their peptide composition and clinical safety.5, 8, 9 The enzymatic hydrolysis and heat treatment used during manufacturing of EHF are designed to disrupt the vast majority of allergenic epitopes. The final product safety of an EHF relies on multiple processes, including effective protein hydrolysis, the removal of residual allergenic peptides or proteins by ultrafiltration (for some products) and ongoing quality management. The significant residual BLG‐ or casein‐derived IPP found in some EHF products suggests incomplete hydrolysis and/or contamination during manufacturing. Furthermore, the significant batch‐to‐batch or within‐batch variation observed may be due to inadequate quality management for some EHF products. The content of peptides with a MW > 1200 Da appeared to closely correlate with both the residual BLGIPP content and BLG‐induced in vitro allergenicity. The percentage of peptides with a MW > 1200 Da may therefore provide a useful reference for comparison of the residual allergenicity between EHF products. This is particularly relevant for EHF‐W because the globular, three‐dimensional structure of whey proteins renders the final peptide profile highly dependent on hydrolysis conditions. By contrast, caseins are more easily hydrolyzed. Our report has several limitations. Firstly, the products analyzed represent a selection of commercially available EHF. Secondly, our findings only apply to the product characteristics at the time of sampling, and recipes or quality management standards may have changed since. Importantly, the clinical implications of our findings are at this stage uncertain, and further studies are needed. Despite these limitations, our survey highlights the need for a more meaningful definition of EHF products. Efforts should be made to standardize analytical methods for residual allergen detection, improve quality control measures during EHF manufacturing, and define minimum clinical evidence requirements for product safety.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare the following potential conflicts of interest: SN, AJ, MK, and RH are salaried employees of Nestlé Health Science, Switzerland, which sponsored the study. The other authors have no conflict of interest. Click here for additional data file. Click here for additional data file. Click here for additional data file. Click here for additional data file. Click here for additional data file.
  9 in total

1.  Remaining symptoms in half the children treated for milk allergy.

Authors:  Nicole C M Petrus; Anne-Fleur A Schoemaker; Meike W van Hoek; Laura Jansen; Marijke C Jansen-van der Weide; Wim M C van Aalderen; Aline B Sprikkelman
Journal:  Eur J Pediatr       Date:  2014-11-22       Impact factor: 3.183

2.  Immediate hypersensitivity to extensively hydrolyzed formulas: An important reminder.

Authors:  A Chauveau; V M Nguyen-Grosjean; S Jacquenet; C Richard; C Mouton-Faivre
Journal:  Pediatr Allergy Immunol       Date:  2016-04-14       Impact factor: 6.377

3.  Residual allergenicity of amino acid-based and extensively hydrolysed cow's milk formulas.

Authors:  M E Levin; D M Blackhurst; F Kirstein; D Kok; G F Van der Watt; A D Marais
Journal:  S Afr Med J       Date:  2017-08-25

4.  American Academy of Pediatrics. Committee on Nutrition. Hypoallergenic infant formulas.

Authors: 
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 7.124

5.  BSACI guideline for the diagnosis and management of cow's milk allergy.

Authors:  D Luyt; H Ball; N Makwana; M R Green; K Bravin; S M Nasser; A T Clark
Journal:  Clin Exp Allergy       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 5.018

6.  Diagnostic approach and management of cow's-milk protein allergy in infants and children: ESPGHAN GI Committee practical guidelines.

Authors:  S Koletzko; B Niggemann; A Arato; J A Dias; R Heuschkel; S Husby; M L Mearin; A Papadopoulou; F M Ruemmele; A Staiano; M G Schäppi; Y Vandenplas
Journal:  J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 2.839

7.  EAACI food allergy and anaphylaxis guidelines: diagnosis and management of food allergy.

Authors:  A Muraro; T Werfel; K Hoffmann-Sommergruber; G Roberts; K Beyer; C Bindslev-Jensen; V Cardona; A Dubois; G duToit; P Eigenmann; M Fernandez Rivas; S Halken; L Hickstein; A Høst; E Knol; G Lack; M J Marchisotto; B Niggemann; B I Nwaru; N G Papadopoulos; L K Poulsen; A F Santos; I Skypala; A Schoepfer; R Van Ree; C Venter; M Worm; B Vlieg-Boerstra; S Panesar; D de Silva; K Soares-Weiser; A Sheikh; B K Ballmer-Weber; C Nilsson; N W de Jong; C A Akdis
Journal:  Allergy       Date:  2014-06-09       Impact factor: 13.146

8.  Clustering analyses in peptidomics revealed that peptide profiles of infant formulae are descriptive.

Authors:  Tim T Lambers; Jolein Gloerich; Els van Hoffen; Wynand Alkema; Dirk H Hondmann; Eric Af van Tol
Journal:  Food Sci Nutr       Date:  2014-12-30       Impact factor: 2.863

9.  Development of β-lactoglobulin-specific chimeric human IgEκ monoclonal antibodies for in vitro safety assessment of whey hydrolysates.

Authors:  Karen Knipping; Peter J Simons; Laura S Buelens-Sleumer; Linda Cox; Marcel den Hartog; Niels de Jong; Reiko Teshima; Johan Garssen; Louis Boon; Léon M J Knippels
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-08-25       Impact factor: 3.240

  9 in total
  7 in total

Review 1.  The Cow's Milk-Related Symptom Score (CoMiSS): A Useful Awareness Tool.

Authors:  Katerina Bajerova; Silvia Salvatore; Christophe Dupont; Philippe Eigenmann; Mikael Kuitunen; Rosan Meyer; Carmen Ribes-Koninckx; Raanan Shamir; Hania Szajewska; Yvan Vandenplas
Journal:  Nutrients       Date:  2022-05-14       Impact factor: 6.706

2.  Partially Hydrolysed Whey Has Superior Allergy Preventive Capacity Compared to Intact Whey Regardless of Amoxicillin Administration in Brown Norway Rats.

Authors:  Katrine Bækby Graversen; Jeppe Madura Larsen; Signe Schultz Pedersen; Laila Vestergaard Sørensen; Heidi Frahm Christoffersen; Lotte Neergaard Jacobsen; Susanne Halken; Tine Rask Licht; Martin Iain Bahl; Katrine Lindholm Bøgh
Journal:  Front Immunol       Date:  2021-08-31       Impact factor: 7.561

Review 3.  Current Guidelines and Future Strategies for the Management of Cow's Milk Allergy.

Authors:  Yvan Vandenplas; Helen A Brough; Alessandro Fiocchi; Mohamad Miqdady; Zakiudin Munasir; Silvia Salvatore; Nikhil Thapar; Carina Venter; Mario C Vieira; Rosan Meyer
Journal:  J Asthma Allergy       Date:  2021-10-21

Review 4.  Alternatives to Cow's Milk-Based Infant Formulas in the Prevention and Management of Cow's Milk Allergy.

Authors:  Natalia Zofia Maryniak; Ana Isabel Sancho; Egon Bech Hansen; Katrine Lindholm Bøgh
Journal:  Foods       Date:  2022-03-23

5.  Nutritional Management With a Casein-Based Extensively Hydrolysed Formula in Infants With Clinical Manifestations of Non-IgE-Mediated CMPA Enteropathies and Constipation.

Authors:  Mikaela Sekkidou; Leilani Muhardi; Constantina Constantinou; Urszula Kudla; Yvan Vandenplas; Nicolaos Nicolaou
Journal:  Front Allergy       Date:  2021-06-11

Review 6.  Relevance of Early Introduction of Cow's Milk Proteins for Prevention of Cow's Milk Allergy.

Authors:  Laurien Ulfman; Angela Tsuang; Aline B Sprikkelman; Anne Goh; R J Joost van Neerven
Journal:  Nutrients       Date:  2022-06-27       Impact factor: 6.706

Review 7.  Strategies and Future Opportunities for the Prevention, Diagnosis, and Management of Cow Milk Allergy.

Authors:  Benjamin Zepeda-Ortega; Anne Goh; Paraskevi Xepapadaki; Aline Sprikkelman; Nicolaos Nicolaou; Rosa Elena Huerta Hernandez; Amir Hamzah Abdul Latiff; Miu Ting Yat; Mohamed Diab; Bakr Al Hussaini; Budi Setiabudiawan; Urszula Kudla; R J Joost van Neerven; Leilani Muhardi; John O Warner
Journal:  Front Immunol       Date:  2021-06-10       Impact factor: 7.561

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.