| Literature DB >> 35387047 |
Tanja Kalic1,2, Christian Radauer2, Andreas L Lopata3,4, Heimo Breiteneder2, Christine Hafner1,5.
Abstract
The accurate and precise diagnosis of IgE-mediated fish allergy is one of the biggest challenges in allergy diagnostics. A wide range of fish species that belong to evolutionary distant classes are consumed globally. Moreover, each fish species may contain multiple isoforms of a given allergen that often differ in their allergenicity. Recent studies indicated that the cross-reactivity between different fish species is limited in some cases and depends on the evolutionary conservation of the involved allergens. Fish allergens belong to several protein families with different levels of stability to food processing. Additionally, different preparation methods may contribute to specific sensitization patterns to specific fish species and allergens in different geographic regions. Here, we review the challenges and opportunities for improved diagnostic approaches to fish allergy. Current diagnostic shortcomings include the absence of important region-specific fish species in commercial in vitro and in vivo tests as well as the lack of their standardization as has been recently demonstrated for skin prick test solutions. These diagnostic shortcomings may compromise patients' safety by missing some of the relevant species and yielding false negative test results. In contrast, the avoidance of all fish as a common management approach is usually not necessary as many patients may be only sensitized to specific species and allergens. Although food challenges remain the gold standard, other diagnostic approaches are investigated such as the basophil activation test. In the context of molecular allergy diagnosis, we discuss the usefulness of single allergens and raw and heated fish extracts. Recent developments such as allergen microarrays offer the possibility to simultaneously quantify serum IgE specific to multiple allergens and allergen sources. Such multiplex platforms may be used in the future to design diagnostic allergen panels covering evolutionary distant fish species and allergens relevant for particular geographic regions.Entities:
Keywords: cross-reactivity; fish allergen diversity; fish allergy; fish extracts; molecular allergy diagnosis; patient management
Year: 2021 PMID: 35387047 PMCID: PMC8974716 DOI: 10.3389/falgy.2021.732178
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Allergy ISSN: 2673-6101
Fish allergy prevalence and fish consumption.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| United States | C | 0.3–0.6 | – | Gupta et al. ( | 12.3 |
| United States | A | 0.9 | – | Gupta et al. ( | 12.3 |
|
| |||||
| China | C | – | 0.2 | Chen et al. ( | 21.1 |
| Israel | C | 0.01 | – | Dalal et al. ( | 22.2 |
| Philippines | C | 2.3 | – | Connet et al. ( | 28.5 |
| UAE | C | 2.8 | – | Al-Hammadi et al. ( | 20.4 |
| Singapore | C | 0.3 | – | Connet et al. ( | – |
| Thailand | C | 0.3 | – | Connet et al. ( | 19.4 |
| Vietnam | C | 1.6 | 1.2 | Le Thu et al. ( | 26.5 |
|
| |||||
| Ghana | C | 0.3 | – | Obeng et al. ( | 26.0 |
|
| |||||
| Finland | C | 5–7 | 0.3 | Pyrhonen et al. ( | 33.8 |
| France | C | – | 0.7 | Penard-Morand et al. ( | 22.9 |
| Germany | C | 0.2 | 0.6 | Grabenhenrich et al. ( | 11.2 |
| Iceland | C | 1.3 | – | Grabenhenrich et al. ( | 74.4 |
| Lithuania | C | 0.5 | – | Grabenhenrich et al. ( | 42.4 |
| Netherlands | C | 0.3 | – | Grabenhenrich et al. ( | 18.6 |
| Norway | C | 3 | – | Eggesbo et al. ( | 38.2 |
| Poland | C | 0.4 | – | Grabenhenrich et al. ( | 10.5 |
| Sweden | C | – | 0.7 | Ostblom et al. ( | 23.9 |
| UK | C | 0.3 | – | Grabenhenrich et al. ( | 15.5 |
Consumption is based on FAOSTAT database on Food Supply - Livestock and Fish Primary Equivalent for 2013 (.
–, not available; C, children; A, adults.
Figure 1Classification of the main bony and cartilaginous fish species relevant for human consumption.
Figure 2Most commonly consumed fish species in different geographic regions.
Families of fish allergens.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| β-Parvalbumin | 12 | 80–100 | 16 | Gad m 1 ( |
| β-Enolase | 47 | 20–60 | 5 | Sal s 2 ( |
| Aldolase A | 40 | 10–40 | 4 | Thu a 3 ( |
| Tropomyosin | 33 | 6–34 | 3 | Ore m 4 ( |
| Collagen type I α1-chain | 130–140 | 22 | 2 | Lat c 6 ( |
| Creatine kinase | 43 | 10–14 | 2 | Sal s 7 ( |
| Triosephosphate isomerase | 27 | 20–30 | 2 | Pan h 8 ( |
| Pyruvate kinase | 59 | 8 | 1 | Pan h 9 ( |
| Lactate dehydrogenase | 36 | 15 | 1 | Pan h 10 ( |
| Glucose 6-phosphate isomerase | 62 | 6 | 1 | Pan h 11 ( |
| Glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase | 37 | 8 | 1 | Pan h 13 ( |
| Vitellogenin | 19 | 100 | 1 | Onc k 5 ( |
Among patients allergic to chum salmon roe.
Data were compiled from the WHO/IUIS Allergen Nomenclature Database (.
Figure 3Structures representing the most important families of fish allergens. (A) β-Parvalbumin from common carp (PDB: 4cpv); (B) α-parvalbumin from Northern pike (PDB: 1pva); (C) human β-enolase (PDB: 2xsx); (D) aldolase A from rabbit (PDB: 1ado); (E) human tropomyosin α1 (PDB: 6x5z). Left column: secondary structure of a single subunit colored from blue (N-terminus) to red (C-terminus); middle column: quaternary structure; right columns: molecular surface colored by sequence conservation derived from a sequence alignment of vertebrate homologs from blue (different residues in all sequences) to red (identical residue in all sequences).
Figure 4Sequence comparison of fish allergens with homologs from other vertebrates. (A) β-parvalbumins compared with human and cartilaginous fish α-parvalbumins; (B) α-parvalbumins; (C) β-enolase; (D) aldolase A compared with cartilaginous fish aldolase C; (E) tropomyosin α1; (F) collagen type I α1 chain. Allergens are printed in bold; the numbers show percent sequence identities between pairs of proteins extracted from multiple sequence alignments generated using ClustalX (37). Species abbreviations: Amb r, Amblyraja radiata (thorny skate); Ano c, Anolis carolinensis (American chameleon); Bos t, Bos taurus (cattle); Cal m, Callorhinchus milii (elephant shark); Car c, Carcharodon carcharias (great white shark); Clu h, Clupea harengus (Atlantic herring); Cro p, Crocodylus porosus (Australian saltwater crocodile); Cyp c, Cyprinus carpio (Common carp); Fal r, Falco rusticolus (gyrfalcon); Gad m, Gadus morhua (Atlantic cod); Gal d, Gallus domesticus (chicken); Hom s, Homo sapiens (human); Lat c, Lates calcarifer (barramundi perch); Lep w, Lepidorhombus whiffiagonis (megrim); Oka k, Okamejei kenojei (ocellate spot skate); Ore m, Oreochromis mossambicus (Mozambique tilapia); Ore n, Oreochromis niloticus (Nile tilapia); Pan h, Pangasianodon hypophthalmus (striped catfish); Pod m, Podarcis muralis (common wall lizard); Raj c, Raja clavata (thornback ray); Ran e, Pelophylax lessonae (Pool frog); Rhi t, Rhincodon typus (whale shark); Sal s, Salmo salar (Atlantic salmon); Sco s, Scomber scombrus (Atlantic mackerel); Thu a, Thunnus albacares (yellowfin tuna); Tri s, Triakis semifasciata (Leopard shark); Xen l, Xenopus laevis (African clawed frog); Xen t, Xenopus tropicalis (tropical clawed frog).