Allergenicity and cross-reactivity of Russian olive pollen (Eleagnus angustifolia).

BACKGROUND: The purposes of this study were: to determine the prevalence of sensitization and immunochemical characterization of Eleagnus angustifolia pollen (Russian olive) that belongs to the family Eleagnaceae. METHODS: A total of 134 patients with rhinoconjunctivitis and/or asthma were studied. Its allergenicity, cross-reactivity with olive pollen and the presence of Ole e 1 and Ole e 4-like molecules were evaluated. RESULTS: Eleagnus angustifolia pollen was detected from May to June. Seventy-three of 134 (30.5%) had positive skin test to E. angustifolia, all of them were positive to olive. There was a good correlation between specific immunoglobulin (Ig)E levels to E. angustifolia and Olea europaea (r = 0.77, P = 0.002). Sodium dodecyl sulphate polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE) immunoblots revealed major IgE-binding bands in the E. angustifolia extract of 43 and 63.7 kDa. The E. angustifolia extract was not able to inhibit olive, whereas O. europaea inhibited E. angustifolia up to 41%. The presence of Ole e 1- and Ole e 4-like allergens in E. angustifolia extract was confirmed by enzyme-linked immunosorbent (ELISA) inhibition assays. Nasal challenge with E. angustifolia was positive in three of six patients with positive skin test to both pollens and negative in five patients with positive skin test only to O. europaea. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms that E. angustifolia is capable of sensitizing individuals in Madrid. A minimal-to-moderate cross-reactivity with olive pollen was established, suggesting some cross-reactivity but not excluding co-sensitization.

Rapid release of Ole e 1 from olive pollen using different solvents.

BACKGROUND: Solubility is an important characteristic of allergenic molecules. The aim of this study was to investigate the solubility of Ole e 1, a major allergen of Olea europaea, using different solvents. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Olea europaea pollen was placed in a glass column and extracted using three different solvents: deionized water, phosphate buffer 0.01 M (PBS) and normal saline (NaCl 0.9%). Several fractions were collected after extraction with each solvent and pooled based on individual protein content. Each fraction corresponded to a different elution profile, as determined by linear regression analysis. After 130 min of extraction, the pollen that remained in the column was further extracted overnight. A control olive pollen extract was also prepared with each solvent. The antigenic and allergenic profiles of all the eluted and pooled fractions were analysed by SDS-PAGE and inmmunoblots. Protein and Ole e 1 content and the amount of protein needed to produce 50% inhibition were also calculated. Ten patients were skin prick tested with the fractions obtained with deionized water. RESULTS: Four elution profiles were obtained using deionized water as the extracting solution and three with the two other solvents. The three solvents produced different kinetics of allergen release. Ole e 1 was rapidly released when water was used, obtaining a total of 256 micro g of Ole e 1/ml after only 7 min of extraction (fraction EC1). Using PBS, or NaCl 0.9%, the release of Ole e 1 started after 4 and 9 min of extraction, respectively. The highest amount ofOle e 1 was eluted after 44 and 26 min, with a total concentration of 162 and 203 micro g of Ole e 1/ml, respectively. The presence of Ole e 1 in each phase was verified by SDS-PAGE and immunoblot analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The extracting solution seems to determine the antigenic profile of olive pollen extracts. Ole e 1 is rapidly released from the pollen grain after extraction in deionized water. The solubility seems to be affected by the use of other solvents. These techniques could be used to manipulate the Ole e 1 content in O. europaea extracts.