A European-Japanese study on peach allergy: IgE to Pru p 7 associates with severity.

BACKGROUND: Pru p 3 and Pru p 7 have been implicated as risk factors for severe peach allergy. This study aimed to establish sensitization patterns to five peach components across Europe and in Japan, to explore their relation to pollen and foods and to predict symptom severity. METHODS: In twelve European (EuroPrevall project) and one Japanese outpatient clinic, a standardized clinical evaluation was conducted in 1231 patients who reported symptoms to peach and/or were sensitized to peach. Specific IgE against Pru p 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7 and against Cup s 7 was measured in 474 of them. Univariable and multivariable Lasso regression was applied to identify combinations of parameters predicting severity. RESULTS: Sensitization to Pru p 3 dominated in Southern Europe but was also quite common in Northern and Central Europe. Sensitization to Pru p 7 was low and variable in the European centers but very dominant in Japan. Severity could be predicted by a model combining age of onset of peach allergy, probable mugwort, Parietaria pollen and latex allergy, and sensitization to Japanese cedar pollen, Pru p 4 and Pru p 7 which resulted in an AUC of 0.73 (95% CI 0.73-0.74). Pru p 3 tended to be a risk factor in South Europe only. CONCLUSIONS: Pru p 7 was confirmed as a significant risk factor for severe peach allergy in Europe and Japan. Combining outcomes from clinical and demographic background with serology resulted in a model that could better predict severity than CRD alone.

Evolution of laboratory parameters in patients with lipid transfer protein syndrome after 3 years of immunotherapy.

Lipid transfer protein (LTP) syndrome is an increasingly prevailing disease, especially in the young population, with severely affected quality of life. Since 2013, a specific treatment, called sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT), with peach extract (SLIT-peach®) has been used, but with no long-term effectiveness studies. The main objective of the present study was to assess the long-term effectiveness of SLIT-peach® and to relate the clinical evolution of patients. This was an ambispective study conducted for 3 years. A total of 25 patients with LTP syndrome were selected and treated with SLIT-peach®. They underwent a provocation test in the first year with reintroduced foods that had produced symptoms in the past. Analytical determination of specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) and immunoglobulin G4 (IgG4) to peach (Pru p 3) was performed at the beginning of treatment, at the first year of initiation, and at the end of treatment. These data were compared with the control group comprising 14 patients with LTP syndrome without treatment. A statistically significant decrease in specific IgE to Pru p 3 at the end of the treatment and an increase in specific IgG4 to Pru p 3 1 year after treatment initiation were observed in the active group in relation to tolerance to foods with LTPs. These results indicate that food tolerance begins after the first year and is maintained after the end of 3 years of treatment. In conclusion, treatment with SLIT-peach® for 3 years is effective for patients with LTP syndrome, preventing the evolution of the disease, allowing patients to restart a diet with plant foods, and improving their quality of life.

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.

Lipid Transfer Protein Sensitization: Risk of Anaphylaxis and Molecular Sensitization Profile in Pru p 3-Sensitized Patients.

BACKGROUND: Component-resolved diagnosis reveals the IgE response to many inhaled, food, and other allergens, improving the understanding and diagnosis of allergic diseases. OBJECTIVE: The aims of the study are to study the recognition of different lipid transfer proteins (LTPs) and other allergen families in a large group of people sensitized to Pru p 3 and to analyze the relationship between the clinical entities and the allergens. METHODS: This cross-sectional study included a large cohort of patients with positive skin tests to peach fruit and Pru p 3 specific IgE antibodies. Respiratory and food allergy symptoms were collected, and we performed prick tests with pollen, plant food, and other allergens plus the ImmunoCAP ISAC assay. RESULTS: Our sample consisted of 421 people with a mean age of 33.25 years (range 16-68); 54.6% were women. Clinical entities included anaphylaxis (37.1%), urticaria (67.9%), and oral allergy syndrome (59.1%). Rhinitis, rhinoconjunctivitis, and/or asthma were diagnosed in 71.8% of the participants. The most pronounced correlation existed between sensitization to Pru p 3 and to Jug r 3, Pla a 3, Ara h 9, and Cor a 8. We found a higher incidence of anaphylaxis in people with 5 or more recognized LTPs. No association was observed between inhaled and food allergies. CONCLUSION: Most Pru p 3-sensitized participants were sensitized to additional allergens from the same family and, to a lesser extent, to other allergens, mainly in the profilin and PR-10 protein families. Anaphylaxis occurred in more than a third of the cases evaluated, and almost three-quarters of them had respiratory symptoms. Respiratory and food allergies involving LTPs do not seem to be associated.

The Role of Lipid Transfer Proteins as Food and Pollen Allergens Outside the Mediterranean Area.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To provide an overview of the prevalence and clinical manifestation of non-specific lipid transfer proteins (LTP)-mediated allergies outside the Mediterranean area and to address potential reasons for the different geographical significance of LTP-driven allergies. RECENT FINDINGS: LTPs are major allergens in the Mediterranean area, which frequently can elicit severe reactions. Pru p 3 the LTP from peach is reported as genuine allergen and is considered a prototypic marker for LTP-mediated allergies. However, both food and pollen LTP allergies exist outside the Mediterranean area, but with lower clinical significance, different immunogenicity, and less clarified role. Evidence has been reported that in areas with high exposure to pollen, in particular to mugwort, pollen-derived LTPs can act as a primary sensitizer to trigger secondary food allergies. Co-sensitization to unrelated allergens might be causative for less severe reactions in response to LTPs. However, the reason for the geographical different sensitization patterns to LTPs remains unclear.

Performance of basophil activation test and specific IgG4 as diagnostic tools in nonspecific lipid transfer protein allergy: Antwerp-Barcelona comparison.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies show that nsLTP sensitization is not limited to the Mediterranean basin and can present diverse clinical phenotypes. It remains challenging to predict clinical outcome when specific IgE antibodies (sIgE) to nsLTPs are present. This study compares both clinical and in vitro allergy characteristics but also diagnostic performance of a basophil activation test (BAT) and sIgG4 in nsLTP-sensitized patients from Antwerp (ANT, Belgium) and Barcelona (BCN, Spain). METHODS: Adult subjects with positive sIgE rPru p 3 and/or rMal d 3 ≥ 0.10 kUA /L (n = 182) and healthy controls (n = 37) were included. NsLTP-sensitized individuals were stratified according to clinical symptoms with peach/apple, respectively. BAT rPru p 3 and rMal d 3 were performed and sIgG4 antibodies to both components quantified. RESULTS: In BCN, only ratios of sIgG4/sIgE rMal d 3 and BAT rMal d 3 (0.001 µg/mL) can identify clinically relevant Mal d 3 sensitization (sensitivity of 60%-63% and a specificity of 75%-67%, respectively). In ANT, only the sIgE/total IgE rPru p 3 ratio shows added value (sensitivity 60% and specificity 83%). Finally, it appears that symptomatic patients in BCN are more sensitive to lower allergen concentrations compared to ANT. In addition, it was shown that ANT patients were more often sensitized to pollen and that specific pollen sources differed between regions. CONCLUSIONS: NsLTP-related allergy profiles and diagnostic performance differ significantly between regions and are component-specific, which makes extrapolation of data difficult to do. In addition, it seems that basophil sensitivity might show geographical differences. Additional research is needed to confirm these findings.

Peanut Allergy in Spanish Children: Comparative Profile of Peanut Allergy versus Tolerance.

BACKGROUND: Peanut storage proteins (Ara h 1, Ara h 2, and Ara h 3) have been described as the major peanut allergens in children, although not all peanut-sensitized individuals have clinical reactivity after exposure. OBJECTIVES: We studied the sensitization profile of peanut-allergic and peanut-tolerant children in a pediatric cohort. METHODS: The clinical features and sensitization profile to the peanut storage proteins Ara h 9 and Pru p 3 were compared between peanut-allergic and peanut-tolerant children using component-resolved diagnostics. RESULTS: Thirty-three peanut-sensitized children were included: 22 allergic and 11 tolerant patients. Seventy-two percent of the peanut-allergic children were sensitized to at least one peanut storage protein. The rates of sensitization to Ara h 1, Ara h 2, and Ara h 3 were 63.6, 68.1, and 68.1%, respectively, among the peanut-allergic children and 27.2, 18.1, and 45.4% among the peanut-tolerant children. IgE from the sera of 18% of the peanut-allergic patients recognized Ara h 9, whereas no sensitization to Ara h 9 was detected in the peanut-tolerant children. A total of 59% of the peanut-allergic and 27% of the peanut-tolerant children were sensitized to Pru p 3. Sensitization to Ara h 1 and Ara h 2 was more frequent among the peanut-allergic children (p < 0.05). Although the levels of specific IgE against peanut storage proteins were higher in peanut allergy, there were not statistically significantly different from the levels in peanut tolerance, probably due to the small number of patients included. CONCLUSIONS: In our population, the peanut-allergic children were mainly sensitized to peanut storage proteins, and Ara h 2 sensitization allows a more accurate diagnosis of clinical reactivity to peanuts. More than half of the peanut-allergic patients were sensitized to peach Pru p 3, and 50% of them had fruit allergy at the time of the study.

Early molecular biomarkers predicting the evolution of allergic rhinitis and its comorbidities: A longitudinal multicenter study of a patient cohort.

BACKGROUND: Pollen-related seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (SAR) is a very frequent pediatric disease in Westernized countries. Risk factors and disease phenotypes have been thoroughly examined in several cross-sectional studies. By contrast, only a few studies have examined disease evolution in patient cohorts. We investigated predictive biomarkers of disease evolution in a large cohort of children with SAR. METHODS: During 2015-2017 (follow-up), we re-examined 401 patients from those enrolled in 2009-2011 (baseline) by the "Panallergens in Pediatrics" study, a large multicenter survey of Italian children with SAR. Information on clinical history (standard questionnaire, AllergyCARD®; TPS, Italy) and skin prick tests for inhalant and foods extracts (ALK-Abelló, Hørsholm, Denmark) was acquired as at baseline visit. Evolution in clinical and sensitization data of patients was analyzed over time, as well as their association with the main baseline characteristics and atopy risk factors. RESULTS: The average age of participants was 10.4 ± 3.4 years at baseline and 16.2 ± 3.6 years at follow-up. SAR persisted in 93.3% of patients at follow-up and became more frequently associated with asthma (from 36.7% at baseline to 48.6% at follow-up) and oral allergy syndrome (OAS, from 23.4% to 37.7%). Compared to baseline, the prevalence of skin sensitization to some pollens (Phleum pratense, Corylus avellana, Platanus acerifolia, Artemisia vulgaris) and vegetables (hazelnut, wheat, and apple) significantly decreased at follow-up. Earlier onset of SAR and polysensitization at baseline were associated with incident asthma at follow-up. The presence at baseline of serum IgE to the following allergen molecules was identified as biomarkers of clinical evolution: (a) Phl p 1, for persistence of SAR; (b) Phl p 5, for persistence of both rhinitis and asthma; (c) Pru p 3, for new onset of asthma; (d) Bet v 1, for persistence of OAS. CONCLUSIONS: Seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis is clinically heterogeneous in its evolution from childhood to adolescence. The detection of serum IgE to specific molecules (Phl p 1, Phl p 5, Bet v 1, Pru p 3) may be useful as biomarkers to predict SAR persistence and future onset of comorbidities, such as asthma and/or OAS.

Pru p 3 sublingual immunotherapy ultra-rush protocol is safe and clinically effective.

Summary: Introduction. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) with Pru p 3 can prevent severe allergic reactions to LTP-containing foods, but the standard initiation protocol is time-consuming. Objectives. Establish the safety of a novel ultra-rush initiation protocol for SLIT with Pru p 3. Methods. Prospective study comparing the side effects of the standard vs novel ultra-rush initiation protocols of SLIT with Pru p 3 in patients with anaphylaxis to LTP. Results. Fifteen patients were included (standard initiation, 5; ultra-rush initiation, 10), 80% females. All patients had oropharyngeal pruritus during initiation, 80% with spontaneous recovery, but no other gastro-intestinal, respiratory, cutaneous or systemic side effects occurred in any patient of both groups. Conclusion. The novel ultra-rush protocol halved the build-up time without increasing side effects.

IL-33/s-ST2 ratio, systemic symptoms, and basophil activation in Pru p 3-sensitized allergic patients.

BACKGROUND: Although IL-33/ST2 axis is involved in the development of allergic diseases, its contribution in food allergy is still unknown. METHODS: In this study, we assessed the serum levels of IL-33 and its s-ST2 receptor in 53 control patients (without allergic diseases), 47 peach (Pru p 3)-sensitized allergic patients (SAP), and in 68 non-Pru p 3-SAP. Basophil activation test (BAT) was used to assess the basophil activation due to allergen exposure before and after the addition of s-ST2 to the blood samples from 5 Pru p 3-SAP. RESULTS: IL-33 levels in Pru p 3-SAP were higher than in non-Pru p 3-SAP and in normal controls. Lower s-ST2 levels were found in Pru p 3-SAP than in non-Pru p 3-SAP. IL-33/s-ST2 ratio was higher in Pru p 3-SAP than in both non-Pru p 3-SAP and controls. Higher IL-33/s-ST2 ratio was observed in Pru p 3-SAP with severe than in those with mild systemic symptoms. BAT analysis in Pru p 3-SAP showed a decrease in basophil activation due to Pru p 3 exposure after the addition of s-ST2 to the blood samples. CONCLUSIONS: An imbalance in the baseline levels of IL-33/ST2 pathway is present in Pru p 3-SAP. The measurement of this pathway might be helpful to detect patients at a higher risk of developing severe systemic symptoms.

Identification of the ligand of Pru p 3, a peach LTP.

KEY MESSAGE: Pru p 3, a peach LTP, is located in pollinated flower styles and secreting downy hairs, transporting a derivative of camptothecin bound to phytosphingosine. Pru p 3 may inhibit a second pollination and may keep away herbivores until seed maturation. The allergen Pru p 3, a peach lipid transfer protein, has been well studied. However, its physiological function remains to be elucidated. Our results showed that Pru p 3 usually carries a lipid ligand that play an essential role in its function in plants. Using ESI-qToF, we observed that the ligand was a derivative of camptothecin binding to phytosphingosine, wich that is inserted into the hydrophobic tunnel of the protein. In addition, the described ligand displayed topoisomerase I activity inhibition and self-fluorescence, both recognized as camptothecin properties. During flower development, the highest expression of Pru p 3 was detected in the styles of pollinated flowers, in contrast to its non-expression in unpollinated pistils, where expression decreased after anthesis. During ripening, the expression of Pru p 3 were observed mainly in peel but not in pulp. In this sense, Pru p 3 protein was also localized in trichomes covering the fruit epidermis.

Mechanisms underlying induction of allergic sensitization by Pru p 3.

BACKGROUND: Recently, the nature of the lipid-ligand of Pru p 3, one of the most common plant food allergens in southern Europe, has been identified as a derivative of the alkaloid camptothecin bound to phytosphingosine. However, the origin of its immunological activity is still unknown. OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the role of the Pru p 3 lipid-ligand in the immunogenic activity of Pru p 3. METHODS: In vitro cultures of different cell types (monocyte-derived dendritic cells [moDCs], PBMCs [peripheral blood mononuclear cells] and epithelial and iNKT-hybridoma cell lines) have been used to determine the immunological capacity of the ligand, by measuring cell proliferation, maturation markers and cytokine production. To study the capacity of the lipid-ligand to promote sensitization to Pru p 3 in vivo, a mouse model of anaphylaxis to peach has been produced and changes in the humoral and basophil responses have been analysed. RESULTS: The lipid-ligand of Pru p 3 induced maturation of moDCsc and proliferation of PBMCs. Its immunological activity resided in the phytosphingosine tail of the ligand. The adjuvant activity of the ligand was also confirmed in vivo, where the complex of Pru p 3-ligand induced higher levels of IgE than Pru p 3 alone. The immunological capacity of the Pru p 3 ligand was mediated by CD1d, as maturation of moDCs was inhibited by anti-CD1d antibodies and Pru p 3-ligand co-localized with CD1d on epithelial cells. Finally, Pru p 3-ligand presented by CD1d was able to interact with iNKTs. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The Pru p 3 lipid-ligand could act as an adjuvant to promote sensitization to Pru p 3, through its recognition by CD1d receptors. This intrinsic adjuvant activity of the accompanying lipid cargo could be a general essential feature of the mechanism underlying the phenomenon of allergenicity.

Pru p 3, a marker allergen for lipid transfer protein sensitization also in Central Europe.

In the Mediterranean area, lipid transfer proteins (LTPs) are important causes of plant-food allergies often associated with severe allergic reactions. There, peach LTP (Pru p 3) seems to be the primary sensitizer, whereas in Central Europe, little is known about the importance of LTP sensitization. In this region, allergen extract-based diagnosis is often complicated by co-sensitization to Bet v 1, the major birch pollen allergen, its cross-reactive food allergens, and profilins. We investigated the role of LTP sensitization in Central European patients displaying strong allergic reactions to plant-derived food. Analysis of IgE reactivity revealed that ten of thirteen patients were sensitized to Pru p 3, nine to Bet v 1, and two to profilin. Our results showed that LTP sensitization represents a risk factor for severe allergic symptoms in Central Europe. Furthermore, the strong IgE reactivity detected in immunoblots of plant-food extracts indicated that Pru p 3 can be used as a marker allergen for LTP sensitization also in Central European patients.

Molecular cloning of plane pollen allergen Pla a 3 and its utility as diagnostic marker for peach associated plane pollen allergy.

BACKGROUND: Non-specific lipid transfer proteins (nsLTP) are considered to provoke allergic symptoms to plane tree pollen, which are frequently associated with peach allergy. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to clone the cDNA of plane pollen nsLTP Pla a 3, to characterize IgE-binding and allergenic potency of recombinant Pla a 3 in comparison to its natural counterpart and peach nsLTP Pru p 3. METHODS: Natural Pla a 3 was purified from plane pollen and analysed by mass spectrometry (MS). Recombinant Pla a 3 was characterized by SDS-PAGE and CD spectroscopy. Specific IgE to extract, components of plane pollen and Pru p 3 was measured by ImmunoCAP in sera of patients allergic to either plane pollen (n = 10), peach (n = 15) or both (n = 15). Biological potency of the proteins was investigated by in vitro mediator release assays and IgE cross-reactivity by competitive ELISA. RESULTS: Two Pla a 3 isoforms were identified. Recombinant Pla a 3 showed high purity, structural integrity, IgE-binding capacity comparable to nPla a 3 and biological potency. Sensitization to plane pollen extract was confirmed in 24/25 plane pollen allergics. The frequency of sensitization to Pla a 3 was 53% among patients allergic to both plane pollen and peach and 10% among plane pollen allergics tolerating peach where most patients were sensitized to Pla a 1. Pla a 3 and Pru p 3 showed strong bi-directional IgE cross-reactivity in patients allergic to peach and plane pollen, but not in peach allergics tolerating plane pollen. Levels of IgE-binding were generally higher to Pru p 3 than to Pla a 3. CONCLUSION: Sensitization to Pla a 3 is relevant in a subgroup of plane pollen allergics with concomitant peach allergy. IgE testing with Pla a 3 may serve as a marker to identify plane pollen allergic patients at risk of LTP-mediated food reactions and thereby improve in vitro diagnostic procedures.

Different co-sensitizations could determine different risk assessment in peach allergy? Evaluation of an anaphylactic biomarker in Pru p 3 positive patients.

BACKGROUND: In Italy, the nsLTP (Pru p 3) has been identified as the most frequent cause of food allergy and anaphylaxis. In order to estimate the risk assessment in peach allergy, we investigated the presence of correlations between the levels of sIgE to Pru p 3 with the severity of the clinical symptoms in two Pru p 3 positive populations from two different areas of Italy. METHODS: 133 consecutively Pru p 3 positive patients were recruited from South Italy, where the prevalence of PR-10 and profilin sensitization is low, and from North-East Italy, where the sensitization to pathogenesis related protein -10 (PR-10) and profilin is higher. Skin prick test (SPT) to peach extract and sIgE to peach panallergens were performed. RESULTS: All 133 patients were positive to SPT to peach extract and to sIgE to Pru p 3. The North-East population was simultaneously positive to Pru p 1 (42.8 %) and Pru p 4 (12.7 %), while no Southern patients were positive to PR-10 or to profilin. A significant difference in the levels of sIgE to Pru p 3 was found only in South Italy Pru p 3 + patients vs. asymptomatic patients (p = 0.01) and in mild reactions vs. severe reactions (p = 0.0008). In South Italy patients, it was also found a significant correlation between the severity of the clinical reaction and the levels of sIgE to Pru p 3 (p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Level of sIgE to Pru p 3 indicates the possibility of development a severe food allergic reaction. Pru p 3 positive patients from different geographical areas and with different co-sensitizations to Pru p 1 and/or Pru p 4 could have a different risk assessment in peach allergy.