Pollen Sensitization Can Increase the Allergic Reaction to Non-Cross-Reactive Allergens in a Soy-Allergic Patient.

During and after the pollen season, an increase in food-triggered allergic symptoms has been observed in pollen-food syndrome patients, possibly due to seasonal boosting of pollen-IgE levels. It has been suggested that consumption of birch-pollen-related foods plays a role in seasonal allergenic inflammation. However, whether this increased pollen sensitization during the pollen season can also affect the allergenicity of allergens that are non-cross-reactive with birch pollen remains in question. This study presents the case of a patient with soy allergy and pollinosis, who experiences worsening of gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms during the birch pollen season even though the eliciting food factor does not cross-react with birch pollen allergens and their homologs (e.g., Bet v 1 and Gly m 4). The results showed a notable increase in sIgE for Gly m 4 (3.3 fold) and Bet v 1 (2.6 fold) during the birch pollen season compared to outside the birch pollen season, while Gly m 5 and Gly m 6 showed only a slight increase (1.5 fold). The basophil activation test (BAT) showed that in this patient Gly m 5 and Gly m 6 are clinically relevant soy allergens, which correlates with the reported clinical symptoms to processed soy. Moreover, the BAT against raw soy shows an increase in basophil activation during the birch pollen season and a negative basophil activation result outside the birch pollen season. Thus, the worsening of GI symptoms could possibly be due to an increase in IgE receptors, an over-reactive immune system, and/or significant intestinal allergic inflammation. This case highlights the importance of including allergens that do not cross-react with birch pollen and using a functional assay such as the BAT to evaluate clinical relevance when assessing birch pollen seasonal influence on soy allergenicity.

Soy Gly m 8 sIgE Has Limited Value in the Diagnosis of Soy Allergy in Peanut Ara h 2-Sensitized Adults.

INTRODUCTION: Recently, specific IgE (sIgE) sensitization against Gly m 8 (soy 2S albumin) has been described as a good diagnostic marker for soy allergy (SA). The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic value of Gly m 8 by determining the sensitization profiles based on the homologues soy allergens Bet v 1, Ara h 1, Ara h 2, and Ara h 3. METHODS: Thirty soy-allergic adults were included; sIgE to total soy extract, Gly m 8, Gly m 4, Gly m 5, Gly m 6, Bet v 1, Ara h 1, Ara h 2, and Ara h 3 were determined. Sensitization patterns were analyzed and determined. The clinical relevance of sIgE of Gly m 8 sensitization was measured by assessing its capacity to degranulate basophils in Gly m8-sensitized patients by an indirect basophil activation test (iBAT). RESULTS: Based on the sIgE patterns of sensitization, two groups of SA patients were identified: (i) peanut-associated SA group (all patients were sensitized to one or more of the peanut compounds) and (ii) non-peanut/PR-10-associated SA group (22 patients were sensitized to Gly m 4 and Bet v 1 but not to any of the peanut compounds). A high and significant correlation between total soy extract and Gly m 6 (R2 = 0.97), Gly m 5 (R2 = 0.85), and Gly m 8 (R2 = 0.78) was observed. A nonsignificant correlation was observed between the levels of sIgE of Gly m 8 versus Ara h2. The iBAT results showed that Gly m 8 did not induce basophil degranulation in any of the peanut-associated patients, indicating that the Gly m8 sensitizations were not clinically relevant. CONCLUSIONS: Gly m 8 was not a major allergen in the selected soy-allergic population. The iBAT results indicated that Gly m 8 was not able to induce basophil degranulation in sIgE Gly m 8-sensitized soy-allergic patients. Thus, Gly m 8 would have no added value in the diagnosis of SA in the present study population.

Toll-Like Receptor-Dependent Immunomodulatory Activity of Pycnogenol®.

BACKGROUND: Pycnogenol® (PYC), an extract of French maritime pine bark, is widely used as a dietary supplement. PYC has been shown to exert anti-inflammatory actions via inhibiting the Toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4) pathway. However, the role of the other receptors from the TLR family in the immunomodulatory activity of PYC has not been described so far. AIM: The aim of this study was to investigate whether PYC might exert its immunomodulatory properties through cell membrane TLRs (TLR1/2, TLR5, and TLR2/6) other than TLR4. Moreover, the effect of gastrointestinal metabolism on the immunomodulatory effects of PYC was investigated. FINDINGS: We showed that intact non-metabolized PYC dose-dependently acts as an agonist of TLR1/2 and TLR2/6 and as a partial agonist of TLR5. PYC on its own does not agonize or antagonize TLR4. However, after the formation of complexes with lipopolysaccharides (LPS), it is a potent activator of TLR4 signaling. Gastrointestinal metabolism of PYC revealed the immunosuppressive potential of the retentate fraction against TLR1/2 and TLR2/6 when compared to the control fraction containing microbiota and enzymes only. The dialyzed fraction containing PYC metabolites revealed the capacity to induce anti-inflammatory IL-10 secretion. Finally, microbially metabolized PYC affected the colonic microbiota composition during in vitro gastrointestinal digestion. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that gastrointestinal metabolism of PYC reveals its biological activity as a potential inhibitor of TLRs signaling. The results suggest that metabolized PYC acts as a partial agonist of TLR1/2 and TLR2/6 in the presence of the microbiota-derived TLR agonists (retentate fraction) and that it possesses anti-inflammatory potential reflected by the induction of IL-10 from THP-1 macrophages (dialysate fraction).

Immunological Characterization of Dutch Sesame Seed-Allergic Patients.

BACKGROUND: Sesame seed is an allergen of growing importance worldwide. However, knowledge of the clinically relevant sesame allergen and its cross-reactivity with homologous allergens is limited. The aim of this study was the immunological characterization of Dutch sesame seed-allergic patients and evaluation of cross-reactivity between sesame seed, tree nut and pollen allergens using different sources of allergen extracts. METHODS: Six patients with a medical history of sesame seed allergy were included, i.e. 5 with an anaphylactic reaction and 1 with an oral allergy syndrome (OAS). The immunological background of the sesame seed and tree nut IgE sensitization was characterized with Western blotting and a basophil activation test (BAT). The major sesame allergen was identified by nanoLC-MS/MS. Cross-reactivity was measured using an immuno-inhibition assay with the Phadia ImmunoCAP system. RESULTS: Oleosin was identified as the major allergen for the 5 patients with an anaphylactic reaction to sesame seed, but no cross-reactivity between sesame and tree nut proteins was observed. For the patient with OAS, IgE specific to oleosin was not detected but cross-reactivity between sesame seed and tree nut proteins was observed. The BAT and ImmunoCAP inhibition test added value to the clinical and immunological characterization of sesame seed-sensitized patients, distinguishing relevant and non-relevant sensitizations. CONCLUSIONS: Our immunological approach enabled us to fully characterize the sensitization pattern of 6 sesame seed-allergic patients. The different protein composition of commercially available allergen extracts influences the outcomes of the immunological assays and thus also the diagnosis to a large extent.