Basophil activation in insect venom allergy: comparison of an established test using liquid reagents with a test using 5-color tubes with dried antibody reagents.

BACKGROUND: Flow cytometry-based basophil activation tests (BAT) have been performed with various modifications, differing in the use of distinct identification and activation markers. Established tests use liquid reagents while a new development involves the use of tubes with dried antibody reagents. The aim of this pilot study was to compare these two techniques in patients with insect venom allergy. METHODS: Seventeen patients with an insect venom allergy were included in the study. The established "BAT 1" utilizes conventional antibody solutions of anti-CCR3 for basophil identification and anti-CD63 to assess basophil activation, whereas "BAT 2" uses dried anti-CD45, anti-CD3, anti-CRTH2, anti-203c and anti-CD63 for identification and activation measurement of basophils. Negative and positive controls as well as incubations with honey bee venom and yellow jacket venom at three concentrations were performed. RESULTS: Seven patients had to be excluded due to low basophil counts, high values in negative controls or negative positive controls. For the remaining 10 patients the overall mean (± SD) difference in activated basophils between the two tests was 0.2 (± 12.2) %P. In a Bland-Altman plot, the limit of agreement (LoA) ranged from 24.0 to -23.7. In the qualitative evaluation (value below/above cut-off) Cohen's kappa was 0.77 indicating substantial agreement. BAT 2 took longer to perform than BAT 1 and was more expensive. CONCLUSION: The BAT 2 technique represents an interesting innovation, however, it was found to be less suitable compared to an established BAT for the routine diagnosis of insect venom allergies.

Mast cell versus basophil activation test in allergy: Current status.

In the past two decades, we witnessed the evolution of the basophil activation test (BAT) from mainly research applications to a potential complementary diagnostic tool to document IgE-dependent allergies. However, BAT presents some technical weaknesses. Around 10%-15% of tested patients are non-responders, BAT can be negative immediately post-reaction and the use of fresh basophils, ideally analysed within 4 h of collection, restricts the number of tests that can be performed per sample. The need for fresh basophils is especially limiting when conducting batch analyses and interlaboratory comparisons to harmonize BAT methodology. These limitations significantly hinder the wider application of BAT and urge the development of alternative testing, such as the mast cell activation test (MAT). The essential difference between BAT and MAT is the heterogeneity of the starting material used to perform the assays. Mast cells are tissue-resident, so cannot be easily accessed. Current alternative sources for functional studies are generating primary human mast cells, differentiated from donor progenitor cells, or using immortalized mast cell lines. Hence, the methodological approaches for MAT are not only vastly different from BAT, but also different among MAT protocols. This review summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of BAT and MAT assays, dedicating special attention to elucidating the key differences between the cellular sources used and provides an overview of studies hitherto performed comparing BAT and MAT in the diagnosis of IgE-mediated food and drug allergies.

Flow-based basophil activation test in immediate drug hypersensitivity. An EAACI task force position paper.

Diagnosing immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions (IDHRs) can pose a significant challenge and there is an urgent need for safe and reliable tests. Evidence has emerged that the basophil activation test (BAT), an in vitro assay that mirrors the in vivo response, can be a complementary test for many drugs. In this position paper, members of Task Force (TF) "Basophil activation test in the evaluation of Drug Hypersensitivity Reactions" from the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) present the data from a survey about the use and utility of BAT in IDHRs in Europe. The survey results indicate that there is a great interest for using BAT especially for diagnosing IDHRs. However, there are still main needs, mainly in the standardization of the protocols. Subsequently consensus-based recommendations were formulated for: (i) Technical aspects of BAT in IDHRs including type of sample, management of drugs, flow cytometry protocols, interpretation of the results; and (ii) Drug-specific aspects that should be taken into account when performing BAT in relation to betalactams, neuromuscular blocking agents, fluoroquinolones, chlorhexidine, opioids, radio contrast media, chemotherapeutics, biological agents, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, COVID vaccine, and excipients. Moreover, aspects in the evaluation of pediatric population have also been considered. All this indicates that BAT offers the clinician and laboratory a complementary tool for a safe diagnostic for IDHRs, although its place in the diagnostic algorithm depends on the drug class and patient population (phenotype, geography, and age). The standardization of BAT is important for generalizing this method beyond the individual laboratory.

BAT and MAT for diagnosis of peanut allergy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Basophil activation test (BAT) or the mast cell activation test (MAT) are two in vitro tests that are currently being studied in food allergy as diagnostic tools as an alternative to oral food challenges (OFCs). We conducted a meta-analysis on BAT and MAT, assessing their specificity and sensitivity in diagnosing peanut allergy. Six databases were searched for studies on patients suspected of having peanut allergy. Studies using BAT or MAT to peanut extract and/or component as diagnostic tools with results given in percentage of CD63 activation were included in this meta-analysis. Study quality was evaluated with the QUADAS-2 tool. On the 11 studies identified, eight focused exclusively on children, while three included a mixed population of adults and children. Only one study provided data on MAT, precluding us from conducting a statistical analysis. The diagnostic accuracy of BAT was higher when stimulated with peanut extract rather than Ara h 2 with a pooled specificity of 96% (95% CI: 0.89-0.98) and sensitivity of 0.86 (95% CI: 0.74-0.93). The sensitivity and specificity of BATs in discriminating between allergic and sensitized patients were studied as well, with pooled analysis revealing a sensitivity of 0.86 (95% CI: 0.74; 0.93) and a specificity of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.94, 0.98). BATs, when stimulated with peanut extracts, exhibit a satisfactory sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of peanut allergy and can help to discriminate between allergic individuals and those only sensitized to peanuts. More investigations on the potential for MATs diagnostic methods are warranted.

Comparison of the passive mast cell activation test with the basophil activation test for diagnosis of perioperative rocuronium hypersensitivity.

BACKGROUND: Rocuronium is a major cause of perioperative hypersensitivity (POH). Skin tests (STs) and quantification of specific immunoglobulin E antibodies (sIgEs) can yield incongruent results. In such difficult cases, the basophil activation test (BAT) can be helpful. Here, we evaluated the passive mast cell activation test (pMAT) as a substitute of BAT as part of the diagnostic tests for rocuronium allergy. METHODS: Sera from patients with a suspected POH reaction potentially related to rocuronium were included. All patients had a complete diagnostic investigation, including STs, quantification of sIgEs to morphine and rocuronium, and BAT. For execution of pMAT, human mast cells were generated from healthy donor peripheral blood CD34+ progenitor cells and sensitised overnight with patient sera. RESULTS: In total, 90 sera were studied: 41 from ST+sIgE+ patients, 13 from ST-sIgE- patients, 20 from ST+sIgE- patients, and 16 from ST-sIgE+ patients. According to BAT results, patients were further allocated into subgroups. Of the 38 BAT+ patients, 25 (66%) showed a positive pMAT as well. Of the 44 BAT- patients, 43 (98%) also showed a negative pMAT. Mast cells that were not passively sensitised did not respond to rocuronium. CONCLUSIONS: We show that the pMAT, in many cases, can substitute for BAT in the diagnosis of rocuronium hypersensitivity and advance diagnosis in difficult cases with uncertain ST or sIgE results when BAT is not locally available.

Diagnosis of immediate reactions to amoxicillin: Comparison of basophil activation markers CD63 and CD203c in a prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Amoxicillin (AX) combined or not with clavulanic acid (CLV) is frequently involved in IgE-mediated reactions. Drug provocation test (DPT) is considered as the gold standard for diagnosis, although contraindicated in high-risk patients. Basophil activation test (BAT) can help diagnose immediate reactions to beta-lactams, although controversy exists regarding the best activation marker. We have performed a real-life study in a prospective cohort to analyze the real value of BAT as diagnostic tool and the best activation marker, CD63 and CD203c, for the evaluation of immediate reactions to these drugs. METHODS: We prospectively evaluated patients with a clinical suspicion of immediate reactions after AX or AX-CLV administration during a 6-year period. The allergological work-up was done following the EAACI recommendations. BAT was performed in all patients using CD63 and CD203c as activation markers. RESULTS: In AX-allergic patients, both activation markers, CD63 and CD203c, showed similar SE values (48.6% and 46.7%, respectively); however, specificity was of 81.1% and 94.6%, respectively, with CD203c showing good positive predictive value and like-hood ratio. In CLV-allergic patients, CD203c showed higher SE (50%) than CD63 (42.9%), maintaining the same value of SP (80%). Combining the results of both markers can slightly increase the sensitivity (51.4% for AX and 54.8% for CLV), although decreasing the specificity (79.7% and 73%, respectively). Interestingly, all patients with an anaphylactic shock showed a positive BAT to CLV using CD203c. CONCLUSIONS: BAT using CD203c showed a good confirmatory power, especially for AX allergy. Placing BAT as a first step in the diagnostic procedure can help reduce the need of performing a complete allergological work-up in 46.6% of patients, diminishing the risk of reinducing allergic reactions.

The value of the basophil activation test in the evaluation of patients reporting allergic reactions to the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.

BACKGROUND: mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines have been reported to induce hypersensitivity reactions (HSR) in a small number of individuals. We aimed to evaluate the real-world incidence of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine HSR and to determine the value of the basophil activation test (BAT) in the allergological workup of patients reporting these reactions. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled patients with a clinical history indicative of HSR to the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. The allergological workup included skin testing (STs) and BAT with polyethylene glycol (PEG) and the vaccine. In those with negative allergy assessments, the administration of the second dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine was offered. RESULTS: Seventeen adults were included. Eleven cases (64.7%) tested negative in the allergological workup and tolerated the re-administration of the second dose of the vaccine and considered non-allergic. Six cases (35.3%) were considered allergic and classified into three groups: 2 subjects displayed positive STs and/or BAT to PEG (Group A), two individuals displayed positive BAT to the vaccine (Group B), and in 2 patients with moderate or severe reactions, the culprit was not identified, tested negative to STs and BAT to both PEG and vaccine (Group C). We further evaluated the value of BAT when the results were positive to the vaccine and negative to PEG by performing BAT in controls groups, finding positive BAT results in 50% of controls, all of them recovered from COVID-19 infection. In contrast, BAT was negative in patients who had not suffered from COVID-19 disease. CONCLUSIONS: BAT can be used as a potential diagnostic tool for confirming allergy to PEG excipient but not to the vaccine as a positive result in BAT may indicate a past COVID-19 infection instead of an allergy.

Principles, potential, and limitations of ex vivo basophil activation by flow cytometry in allergology: A narrative review.

The major challenge of allergy diagnosis lies in the development of accessible and reliable diagnostics allowing correct prediction of the clinical outcome following exposure to the offending allergen(s) and cross-reactive structures. Since the late nineties, evidence has accumulated that flow-assisted analysis and quantification of ex vivo-activated basophils (according to the basophil activation test [BAT]) might meet this requirement for different IgE-dependent allergies and particular forms of autoimmune urticaria. Other so-called nondiagnostic applications of the BAT involve therapeutic monitoring, follow-up of natural histories, and identification of allergenic recognition sites. However, it has also become clear that appropriate use of the BAT necessitates knowledge about degranulation metrics and guidance to guarantee correct execution and interpretation of the results. Here, we have reviewed the most relevant applications and limitations of the BAT. Some personal statements and views about its perspectives are made.

Basophil Activation Test Utility as a Diagnostic Tool in LTP Allergy.

Plant-food allergy is an increasing problem, with nonspecific lipid transfer proteins (nsLTPs) triggering mild/severe reactions. Pru p 3 is the major sensitizer in LTP food allergy (FA). However, in vivo and in vitro diagnosis is hampered by the need for differentiating between asymptomatic sensitization and allergy with clinical relevance. The basophil activation test (BAT) is an ex vivo method able to identify specific IgE related to the allergic response. Thus, we aimed to establish the value of BAT in a precise diagnosis of LTP-allergic patients. Ninety-two individuals with peach allergy sensitized to LTP, Pru p 3, were finally included, and 40.2% of them had symptoms to peanut (n = 37). In addition, 16 healthy subjects were recruited. BAT was performed with Pru p 3 and Ara h 9 (peanut LTP) at seven ten-fold concentrations, and was evaluated by flow cytometry, measuring the percentage of CD63 (%CD63+) and CD203c (%CD203chigh) cells, basophil allergen threshold sensitivity (CD-Sens), and area under the dose−response curve (AUC). Significant changes in BAT parameters (%CD63+ and %CD203chigh) were found between the controls and patients. However, comparisons for %CD63+, %CD203chigh, AUC, and CD-Sens showed similar levels among patients with different symptoms. An optimal cut-off was established from ROC curves, showing a significant positive percentage of BAT in patients compared to controls and great values of sensitivity (>87.5%) and specificity (>85%). In addition, BAT showed differences in LTP-allergic patients tolerant to peanut using its corresponding LTP, Ara h 9. BAT can be used as a potential diagnostic tool for identifying LTP allergy and for differentiating peanut tolerance, although neither reactivity nor sensitivity can distinguish the severity of the clinical symptoms.

Diagnostic utility of the basophil activation test in natto-induced hypersensitivity.

BACKGROUND: Natto (fermented soybeans)-induced hypersensitivity is characterized by delayed symptom onset that hampers diagnosis. We aimed to clarify the clinical utility of the basophil activation test (BAT) in the diagnosis of natto-induced hypersensitivity. METHODS: Five patients with a history of anaphylaxis and chronic urticaria suspected of natto-induced hypersensitivity and seven with chronic spontaneous urticaria clinically unrelated to natto were enrolled in the patient and control groups, respectively. The BAT was performed with two incubation times, 15 min and 1 h, in combination with various concentrations of natto-mucilage extract. RESULTS: In controls, CD203c levels in basophils remained low in the 15-min incubation but were significantly increased in the 1-h incubation. In the patient group, in the 15-min condition, basophil CD203c was significantly upregulated by natto mucilage but not by soybean vs controls (P = 0.001). Low concentrations of natto mucilage were sufficient to upregulate basophil CD203c in the anaphylaxis cases, but high concentrations were required to induce the same effect in the urticaria cases. Finally, the dose-dependent pattern of the BAT results differed significantly between the anaphylaxis and urticaria cases (P = 0.006). Thus, a strong background reaction was observed in the BAT with 1 h incubation; 15 min of incubation was sufficient to identify patients with natto-induced hypersensitivity and may distinguish the clinical phenotype of natto-induced hypersensitivity, i.e., anaphylaxis or urticaria. CONCLUSIONS: The BAT with a 15-min incubation period is useful in diagnosing natto-induced hypersensitivity.

Innovative robust basophil activation test using a novel gating strategy reliably diagnosing allergy with full automation.

BACKGROUND: Allergy is one of the most common chronic diseases in Europe. Therefore, an increased need for specific and sensitive diagnostic tests that truly detect allergy exists. This study aimed at establishing a highly specific high-throughput and automated basophil activation test (BAT) that proves the existence of an allergy with utmost probability. METHODS: BAT from 1104 samples was analyzed; a novel gating strategy with three antibodies (FcεRIα, CD203c, CD63) was established and compared with our published protocol (12 antibodies). Based on the novel gating strategy, storage conditions, automated measurement, and analyses using R (1376 samples out of 1389) were optimized to set up a high-throughput BAT. RESULTS: No differences in sensitivity and specificity were found between the novel three antibody (FcεRIα, CD203c, CD63) and the 12 antibody gating strategy or between automated and manually analyzed samples (saving up to 90% of labor time). The time frame for basophil activation measurement after blood donation has been extended considerably (whole blood storage ≤7 days (RT) and 17 days (4°C) prior to BAT preparation and measurement). Respective storage conditions were optimized for samples after stimulation, staining, and preparation (≤7 days (RT) and 28 days (4°C)). These achievements were confirmed by a nationwide ring trial showing robustness and applicability of our BAT on a variety of flow cytometers. CONCLUSION: Our considerable optimizations overcame the hurdles that until now prevented the BAT from being used as high-throughput allergy diagnostic test in routine laboratories and shall allow for collaborative studies between clinics and research centers.

Peanut allergy diagnosis: Moving from basic to more elegant testing.

Peanut allergy (PNA) is an IgE-mediated immune disorder, which merits particular attention due to its impact on the health and quality of life of millions of patients worldwide. PNA tends to develop in early life and resolves in only 20% of peanut-allergic children. It accounts for the majority of severe food-related allergic reactions. An accurate diagnosis of PNA is vital. In this review, we present the approach to the diagnosis of peanut allergy, starting from the history and proceeding to measures of overall sensitization and then to component-resolved diagnostics and oral food challenges as indicated. Additional testing in development includes basophil activation testing and determination of epitopes for peanut-allergic responses. Based on the literature, stepwise approaches and predictive models for diagnosing PNA are also presented.

Early decrease in basophil sensitivity to Ara h 2 precedes sustained unresponsiveness after peanut oral immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Only some patients with peanut allergy undergoing oral immunotherapy (OIT) achieve sustained clinical response. Basophil activation could provide a functional surrogate of efficacy. OBJECTIVE: We hypothesized that changes in basophil sensitivity and area under the curve (AUC) to the immunodominant allergen Ara h 2 correlate with clinical responses to OIT. METHODS: Children with peanut allergy aged 7 to 13 years were enrolled in a single-center, open-label peanut OIT trial. Levels of specific immunoglobulins were measured throughout OIT. Peripheral blood from multiple time points was stimulated in vitro with peanut allergens for flow cytometric assessment of the percentage of CD63hi activated basophils. RESULTS: Twenty-two of 30 subjects were successfully treated with OIT; after avoidance, 9 achieved sustained unresponsiveness (SU), and 13 had transient desensitization (TD). Basophil sensitivity, measured by using the dose that induces 50% of the maximal basophil response, to Ara h 2 stimulation decreased from baseline in subjects with SU (after OIT, P = .0041; after avoidance, P = .0011). At 3 months of OIT, basophil sensitivity in subjects with SU decreased from baseline compared with that in subjects with TD (median, 18-fold vs 3-fold; P = .01), with a receiver operating characteristic of 0.84 and optimal fold change of 4.9. Basophil AUC to Ara h 2 was suppressed after OIT equally in subjects with SU and those with TD (P = .4). After avoidance, basophil AUC rebounded in subjects with TD but not those with SU (P < .001). Passively sensitized basophils suppressed with postavoidance SU plasma had a lower AUC than TD plasma (6.4% vs 38.9%, P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Early decreases in basophil sensitivity to Ara h 2 correlate with SU. Basophil AUC rebounds after avoidance in subjects with TD. Therefore, different aspects of basophil activation might be useful for monitoring of OIT efficacy.

Clinical utility of the basophil activation test in the diagnosis of sweat allergy.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with atopic dermatitis and cholinergic urticaria display an immediate-type allergy to autologous sweat. Although the histamine release test (HRT) using semi-purified sweat antigen (QR) was available for the detection of immediate sweat allergy, the existence of HRT low responders could not be disregarded. Furthermore, it has not been established whether the results of the HRT are consistent with the autologous sweat skin test (ASwST). We aimed to compare the HRT and basophil activation test (BAT) for the diagnosis of immediate sweat allergy. METHODS: The HRT and BAT were performed on 47 subjects (35 ASwST positive, 12 negative) whose symptoms had worsened on sweating. For the BAT, blood was incubated with QR or crude sweat and CD203c upregulation was assessed. A commercial HRT was performed and histamine release induced by QR was quantified. RESULTS: When excluding non-responders for anti-IgE antibody, the BAT using QR and the HRT had a sensitivity of 100% and 44% and specificity of 75% and 100%, respectively. The BAT and HRT had a positive predictive value of 91.3% and 100% and negative predictive value of 100% and 30%, respectively. The BAT detected 0% non-responders, whereas the HRT identified 22.5%. When using crude sweat for the BAT, the false-positives observed when using QR were not detected. CONCLUSIONS: The BAT using QR displayed a higher sensitivity and negative predictive value and a lower number of non-responders compared with the HRT. Furthermore, the BAT using crude sweat can also be an alternative tool for the ASwST.

NUT Co Reactivity - ACquiring Knowledge for Elimination Recommendations (NUT CRACKER) study.

BACKGROUND: Ambiguities exist regarding the diagnosis of tree-nut allergy, necessitating either their elimination or the performance of oral food challenges (OFCs). OBJECTIVE: To examine the coincidences of allergies among tree-nuts and improve diagnostic testing to minimize the need for OFC. METHODS: Eighty-three patients prospectively evaluated for walnut, pecan, cashew, pistachio, hazelnut, and almond allergy. A history of previous reactions was obtained, and standardized skin prick tests (SPTs) using finely ground tree-nut solution and basophil activation tests (BAT) were performed. Patients underwent OFC for each tree-nut they eliminated and to which a reaction in the previous 2 years was not documented. RESULTS: While most patients were sensitized to 5-6 tree-nuts, over 50% were allergic to only 1-2 tree-nuts. The highest rate of allergy in sensitized patients was observed for walnut (74.6%) and cashew (65.6%). The rate of co-allergy for most tree-nuts was <30%. Two-thirds of walnut- and cashew-allergic patients were also allergic to pecan and pistachio, respectively, while all pecan- and pistachio-allergic patients were allergic to walnut and cashew, respectively. Receiver-operating characteristic analysis for SPT and BAT was tree-nut dependent and yielded area under the curve (AUC) values ranging from 0.75 to 0.94. Knowledge of coincident allergies in these pairs along with the combination of SPT and BAT correctly distinguished allergic from tolerant patients for walnut (87%), pecan (66%), cashew (71%), and pistachio (79%). CONCLUSION: The data presented here should assist in differentiating between allergic and tolerant patients, decrease the need for OFC, and allow for appropriate elimination recommendations.

Assessing basophil activation by using flow cytometry and mass cytometry in blood stored 24 hours before analysis.

BACKGROUND: Basophil activation tests (BATs) have promise for research and for clinical monitoring of patients with allergies. However, BAT protocols vary in blood anticoagulant used and temperature and time of storage before testing, complicating comparisons of results from various studies. OBJECTIVE: We attempted to establish a BAT protocol that would permit analysis of blood within 24 hours of obtaining the sample. METHODS: Blood from 46 healthy donors and 120 patients with peanut allergy was collected into EDTA or heparin tubes, and samples were stored at 4°C or room temperature for 4 or 24 hours before performing BATs. RESULTS: Stimulation with anti-IgE or IL-3 resulted in strong upregulation of basophil CD203c in samples collected in EDTA or heparin, stored at 4°C, and analyzed 24 hours after sample collection. However, a CD63hi population of basophils was not observed in any conditions in EDTA-treated samples unless exogenous calcium/magnesium was added at the time of anti-IgE stimulation. By contrast, blood samples collected in heparin tubes were adequate for quantification of upregulation of basophil CD203c and identification of a population of CD63hi basophils, irrespective of whether the specimens were analyzed by means of conventional flow cytometry or cytometry by time-of-flight mass spectrometry, and such tests could be performed after blood was stored for 24 hours at 4°C. CONCLUSION: BATs to measure upregulation of basophil CD203c and induction of a CD63hi basophil population can be conducted with blood obtained in heparin tubes and stored at 4°C for 24 hours.

Mast cells derived from human induced pluripotent stem cells are useful for allergen tests.

BACKGROUND: Several methods have been developed to detect allergen-specific IgE in sera. The passive IgE sensitization assay using human IgE receptor-expressing rat cell line RBL-2H3 is a powerful tool to detect biologically active allergen-specific IgE in serum samples. However, one disadvantage is that RBL-2H3 cells are vulnerable to high concentrations of human sera. Only a few human cultured cell lines are easily applicable to the passive IgE sensitization assay. However, the use of human induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) to generate human mast cells (MCs) has not yet been reported. METHODS: The nuclear factor-kappa B (NF-κB)-responsive luciferase reporter gene was stably introduced into a human iPSC line 201B7, and the transfectants were induced to differentiate into MCs (iPSC-MCs). The iPSC-MCs were sensitized overnight with sera from subjects who were allergic to cedar pollen, ragweed pollen, mites, or house dust, and then stimulated with an extract of corresponding allergens. Activation of iPSC-MCs was evaluated by ß-hexosaminidase release, histamine release, or luciferase intensity. RESULTS: iPSCs-MCs stably expressed high-affinity IgE receptor and functionally responded to various allergens when sensitized with human sera from relevant allergic subjects. This passive IgE sensitization system, which we termed the induced mast cell activation test (iMAT), worked well even with undiluted human sera. CONCLUSIONS: iMAT may serve as a novel determining system for IgE/allergens in the clinical and research settings.

The human mast cell line-1 cell membrane chromatography coupled with HPLC-ESI-MS/MS method for screening potentical anaphylactic components from chuanxinlian injection.

Chuanxinlian injection is a traditional Chinese medicine injection widely used in China to treat sore throat, cough and dysentery, although a high occurrence of severe adverse reactions has been reported in clinical practice in recent years. In the present study, a human mast cell line-1 cell membrane chromatography coupled with HPLC-ESI-MS/MS method was established to screen and identify potentical anaphylactic components in chuanxinlian injection, and the dehydroandrographolide was identified as a potential anaphylactic component. In vitro anaphylactic assay showed that intracellular Ca2+ concentration clearly increased under dehydroandrographolide (100 µm) treatment. ß-Hexosaminidase and histamine release in human mast cell line-1 cells were both markedly enhanced with increased concentrations of dehydroandrographolide, confirming the anaphylactic activity of dehydroandrographolide. The application for chuanxinlian injection in this study suggested that the developed human mast cell line-1 cell membrane chromatography coupled with HPLC-ESI-MS/MS system may be effective and rapid for screening the potentical anaphylactic components from complex samples.