D W Goetz1, M A Goetz, B A Whisman. 1. Allergy-Immunology Department, Wilford Hall Medical Center, Lackland AFB, Texas, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mountain cedar (Juniperus ashei) pollen is the principal aeroallergen in south central Texas from late December through February. The major mountain cedar allergen is a 40-kD glycoprotein, gp40. OBJECTIVE: To identify allergens in mountain cedar wood, leaves, and berries and to detect mountain cedar allergen in smoke from burning male or female trees. METHODS: SDS-PAGE plus mountain cedar human sIgE and monoclonal antibody immunoblots identified mountain cedar allergens within pollen and nonpollen tree part extracts. RESULTS: IgE immunoblots identified a single wood allergen at 36 kD and three berry allergens at 36, 26-27, and 21 kD, in addition to known pollen allergens. Mountain cedar monoclonal antibody bound an allergen epitope present not only on 40, 33, and 28-kD pollen allergens, but also on 36 and 32-kD wood allergens, and the 26-27-kD berry allergen. Immunoblot studies detected no mountain cedar allergen in leaves and no allergen in smoke from burning male and female trees. Allergens constituted a much smaller percentage of extractable protein in wood and berries than in pollen. CONCLUSIONS: Mountain cedar berry allergen content is too small to give credence to the ingestion of berries as a folk medicine treatment of mountain cedar pollinosis. In addition, while smoke from burning mountain cedar trees may be irritating, it contains no allergens that could cause allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.
BACKGROUND: Mountain cedar (Juniperus ashei) pollen is the principal aeroallergen in south central Texas from late December through February. The major mountain cedar allergen is a 40-kD glycoprotein, gp40. OBJECTIVE: To identify allergens in mountain cedar wood, leaves, and berries and to detect mountain cedar allergen in smoke from burning male or female trees. METHODS: SDS-PAGE plus mountain cedar human sIgE and monoclonal antibody immunoblots identified mountain cedar allergens within pollen and nonpollen tree part extracts. RESULTS: IgE immunoblots identified a single wood allergen at 36 kD and three berry allergens at 36, 26-27, and 21 kD, in addition to known pollen allergens. Mountain cedar monoclonal antibody bound an allergen epitope present not only on 40, 33, and 28-kD pollen allergens, but also on 36 and 32-kD wood allergens, and the 26-27-kD berry allergen. Immunoblot studies detected no mountain cedar allergen in leaves and no allergen in smoke from burning male and female trees. Allergens constituted a much smaller percentage of extractable protein in wood and berries than in pollen. CONCLUSIONS: Mountain cedar berry allergen content is too small to give credence to the ingestion of berries as a folk medicine treatment of mountain cedar pollinosis. In addition, while smoke from burning mountain cedar trees may be irritating, it contains no allergens that could cause allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.
Authors: Zun Liu; Shikha Bhattacharyya; Bo Ning; Terumi Midoro-Horiuti; Edmund W Czerwinski; Randall M Goldblum; Andrew Mort; Christopher M Kearney Journal: Int Arch Allergy Immunol Date: 2010-06-17 Impact factor: 2.749
Authors: Marcie H Moehnke; Terumi Midoro-Horiuti; Randall M Goldblum; Christopher M Kearney Journal: Biotechnol Lett Date: 2008-02-13 Impact factor: 2.461