Co-sensitization between legumes is frequently seen, but variable and not always clinically relevant.

Background: Food allergy to peanut and soybean, both legumes, is highly prevalent. The consumption of other legumes and legume protein isolates, some of which may be considered novel foods, is increasing. This may lead to an increase in sensitization and allergy and may pose a risk for legume-allergic (e.g. peanut and soybean) patients due to cross-reactivity. Objective: This study investigated the frequency of co-sensitization and co-allergy between legumes and the role of different protein families. Methods: Six legume-allergic patient groups were included: peanut (n = 30), soybean (n = 30), lupine (n = 30), green pea (n = 30), lentil (n = 17), bean (n = 9). IgE binding to total extracts, protein fractions (7S/11S globulin, 2S albumin, albumin), and 16 individual proteins from 10 legumes (black lentil, blue lupine, chickpea, faba bean, green lentil, pea, peanut, soybean, white bean, and white lupine) was measured by line blot. Results: Co-sensitization varied from 36.7% to 100%. Mono-sensitization was only found in soybean (16.7%), peanut (10%), and green pea-allergic (3.3%) patients. A high frequency of co-sensitization between the 7S/11S globulin fractions of all 10 legumes and individual 7S and 11S globulins was observed. In peanut and soybean-allergic patients, co-allergies for other legumes were uncommon (≤16,7%), while in green pea, lupine, lentil, and bean-allergic patients co-allergy for peanut (64.7%-77.8%) or soybean (50%-64.7%) was frequently seen. Conclusion: Co-sensitization between legumes was high, but generally not clinically relevant. Co-allergy to other legumes was not often seen in peanut- and soybean allergic patients. The 7S and 11S globulins were likely responsible for the observed co-sensitization.

Are Physicochemical Properties Shaping the Allergenic Potency of Plant Allergens?

This review searched for published evidence that could explain how different physicochemical properties impact on the allergenicity of food proteins and if their effects would follow specific patterns among distinct protein families. Owing to the amount and complexity of the collected information, this literature overview was divided in two articles, the current one dedicated to protein families of plant allergens and a second one focused on animal allergens. Our extensive analysis of the available literature revealed that physicochemical characteristics had consistent effects on protein allergenicity for allergens belonging to the same protein family. For example, protein aggregation contributes to increased allergenicity of 2S albumins, while for legumins and cereal prolamins, the same phenomenon leads to a reduction. Molecular stability, related to structural resistance to heat and proteolysis, was identified as the most common feature promoting plant protein allergenicity, although it fails to explain the potency of some unstable allergens (e.g. pollen-related food allergens). Furthermore, data on physicochemical characteristics translating into clinical effects are limited, mainly because most studies are focused on in vitro IgE binding. Clinical data assessing how these parameters affect the development and clinical manifestation of allergies is minimal, with only few reports evaluating the sensitising capacity of modified proteins (addressing different physicochemical properties) in murine allergy models. In vivo testing of modified pure proteins by SPT or DBPCFC is scarce. At this stage, a systematic approach to link the physicochemical properties with clinical plant allergenicity in real-life scenarios is still missing.

Are Physicochemical Properties Shaping the Allergenic Potency of Animal Allergens?

Key determinants for the development of an allergic response to an otherwise 'harmless' food protein involve different factors like the predisposition of the individual, the timing, the dose, the route of exposure, the intrinsic properties of the allergen, the food matrix (e.g. lipids) and the allergen modification by food processing. Various physicochemical parameters can have an impact on the allergenicity of animal proteins. Following our previous review on how physicochemical parameters shape plant protein allergenicity, the same analysis was proceeded here for animal allergens. We found that each parameter can have variable effects, ranging on an axis from allergenicity enhancement to resolution, depending on its nature and the allergen. While glycosylation and phosphorylation are common, both are not universal traits of animal allergens. High molecular structures can favour allergenicity, but structural loss and uncovering hidden epitopes can also have a similar impact. We discovered that there are important knowledge gaps in regard to physicochemical parameters shaping protein allergenicity both from animal and plant origin, mainly because the comparability of the data is poor. Future biomolecular studies of exhaustive, standardised design together with strong validation part in the clinical context, together with data integration model systems will be needed to unravel causal relationships between physicochemical properties and the basis of protein allergenicity.

Poor understanding of allergen labelling by allergic and non-allergic consumers.

BACKGROUND: Understanding consumers' interpretation of allergy information is crucial for effective food safety policies. We evaluated consumer understanding of allergy information on foods in controlled, experimental studies. METHOD: Using 18 packaged foods, we evaluated consumer understanding of information about allergens in two experiments: First, a comparison of foods with no stated allergen versus allergen as a stated ingredient versus a precautionary allergen label (PAL); second, a comparison of three common variants of PAL. In each experiment, consumers with and without self-reported food allergy were asked to estimate the risk of allergic reaction and to rate the comprehensibility of the allergen information. In the second experiment, consumers were also asked which form of PAL they preferred. RESULTS: Risk of reaction was assessed as high and low for foods with the allergen stated as ingredient, or without any mention of allergen. However, risk assessment for PAL varied and was judged as higher by non-allergic than allergic participants (82% vs. 58%, p < .001). Understanding of risk associated with PAL also varied by health literacy (p < .001). Both allergic and non-allergic consumers judged all forms of allergy information to be unclear, especially products with no allergy information for non-allergic consumers. Products with a 'Produced in a Factory' PAL were perceived as less risky than 'May contain' or 'Traces of' PALs (p < .001), less than 40% of participants judged PAL information to be comprehensible, and participants preferred 'May contain' over the other PALs. CONCLUSION: Both allergic and non-allergic consumers find allergen information difficult to interpret on packaged foods and misunderstand PAL, incorrectly distinguishing different risk levels for different PAL wording. Clearer allergy information guidelines are called for, and the use of only one PAL wording is recommended.

Ranking of 10 legumes according to the prevalence of sensitization as a parameter to characterize allergenic proteins.

Predicting the allergenicity of novel proteins is challenging due to the absence of validated predictive methods and a well-defined reference set of proteins. The prevalence of sensitization could be a parameter to select reference proteins to characterize allergenic proteins. This study investigated whether the prevalence of sensitization of legume extracts and proteins can indeed be used for this purpose. A random sample of suspected food-allergic patients (n=106) was therefore selected. 10 extracts (processed and non-processed) and 18 individual proteins (2S albumins, 7S and 11S globulins) from black lentil, blue and white lupine, chickpea, faba bean, green lentil, pea, peanut, soybean, and white bean were isolated and the prevalence of sensitization and the intensity of IgE binding were evaluated. The prevalence of sensitization ranged from 5.7 % (faba bean and green lentil) to 14.2 % (peanut). The prevalence of sensitization for individual legume proteins ranged from 0.0 % for albumin 1 (pea) to 15.1 %-17.9 % for Ara h 1, 2, 3, and 6 (peanut). The prevalence of sensitization correlated strongly with the intensity of IgE binding for individual proteins (p < 0.05, ρ = 0.894), for extracts no correlation was found. The discovered ranking can be used to select reference proteins for the development and validation of predictive in vitro or in vivo assays for the assessment of the sensitizing potential.

Predicting the allergenicity of legume proteins using a PBMC gene expression assay.

BACKGROUND: Food proteins differ in their allergenic potential. Currently, there is no predictive and validated bio-assay to evaluate the allergenicity of novel food proteins. The objective of this study was to investigate the potential of a human peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) gene expression assay to identify biomarkers to predict the allergenicity of legume proteins. RESULTS: PBMCs from healthy donors were exposed to weakly and strongly allergenic legume proteins (2S albumins, and 7S and 11S globulins from white bean, soybean, peanut, pea and lupine) in three experiments. Possible biomarkers for allergenicity were investigated by exposing PBMCs to a protein pair of weakly (white bean) and strongly allergenic (soybean) 7S globulins in a pilot experiment. Gene expression was measured by RNA-sequencing and differentially expressed genes were selected as biomarkers. 153 genes were identified as having significantly different expression levels to the 7S globulin of white bean compared to soybean. Inclusion of multiple protein pairs from 2S albumins (lupine and peanut) and 7S globulins (white bean and soybean) in a larger study, led to the selection of CCL2, CCL7, and RASD2 as biomarkers to distinguish weakly from strongly allergenic proteins. The relevance of these three biomarkers was confirmed by qPCR when PBMCs were exposed to a larger panel of weakly and strongly allergenic legume proteins (2S albumins, and 7S and 11S globulins from white bean, soybean, peanut, pea and lupine). CONCLUSIONS: The PBMC gene expression assay can potentially distinguish weakly from strongly allergenic legume proteins within a protein family, though it will be challenging to develop a generic method for all protein families from plant and animal sources. Graded responses within a protein family might be of more value in allergenicity prediction instead of a yes or no classification.

Allergen labelling: Current practice and improvement from a communication perspective.

BACKGROUND: Allergen information on product labels is crucial in food allergy management, though inadequacy in current labelling practices is one of the major causes for accidental reactions upon consuming prepacked food products. OBJECTIVE: This study analyses current status of communicating allergen information on food labels and provides practical recommendations for improving the label format based on communication theory. METHODS: Product labels (N 288) of seven food categories from private label products and brands were obtained at three retailers in the Netherlands. Information regarding the 14 EU-regulated allergens was evaluated by the frequency of emphasizing allergens in the ingredient list, use of precautionary allergen labelling (PAL), icons and an allergen information section. Effectiveness of communication was assessed evaluating readability and findability of information on allergens using principles of Gestalt and Cognitive Load theories. RESULTS: As requested by EU regulation 1169/2011, emphasizing allergens in the ingredient list was almost 100%, all other presentations of information on allergens on labels was highly diverse. A separate allergen information section was present on most private label products. This section could, but not necessarily did, repeat allergens from the ingredient list and/or give a PAL. Brands often provided a PAL at the end of the ingredient list. Part of the products displayed an icon at different locations of the label. Label background, a lack of cohesion and variation in location of topics hamper the identification of relevant information on allergens by (allergic) consumers. Recommendations include a standardized order for mandatory and voluntary topics on the label and a separate allergen information section. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Overall, consumers encounter a wide and inconsistent range in ways of presentation of allergen information on labels. Standardization according to basic design principles can improve usability and support safe food purchases for allergic consumers.

Digestion and Transport across the Intestinal Epithelium Affects the Allergenicity of Ara h 1 and 3 but Not of Ara h 2 and 6.

SCOPE: No accepted and validated methods are currently available which can accurately predict protein allergenicity. In this study, the role of digestion and transport on protein allergenicity is investigated. METHODS AND RESULTS: Peanut allergens (Ara h 1, 2, 3, and 6) and a milk allergen (ß-lactoglobulin) are transported across pig intestinal epithelium using the InTESTine model and afterward basophil activation is measured to assess the (remaining) functional properties. Additionally, allergens are digested by pepsin prior to epithelial transport and their allergenicity is assessed in a human mast cell activation assay. Remarkably, transported Ara h 1 and 3 are not able to activate basophils, in contrast to Ara h 2 and 6. Digestion prior to transport results in a significant increase in mast cell activation of Ara h 1 and 3 dependent on the length of digestion time. Activation of mast cells by Ara h 2 and 6 is unaffected by digestion prior to transport. CONCLUSIONS: Digestion and transport influences the allergenicity of Ara h 1 and 3, but not of Ara h 2 and 6. The influence of digestion and transport on protein allergenicity may explain why current in vitro assays are not predictive for allergenicity.

Immunological Outcomes of Allergen-Specific Immunotherapy in Food Allergy.

IgE-mediated food allergies are caused by adverse immunologic responses to food proteins. Allergic reactions may present locally in different tissues such as skin, gastrointestinal and respiratory tract and may result is systemic life-threatening reactions. During the last decades, the prevalence of food allergies has significantly increased throughout the world, and considerable efforts have been made to develop curative therapies. Food allergen immunotherapy is a promising therapeutic approach for food allergies that is based on the administration of increasing doses of culprit food extracts, or purified, and sometime modified food allergens. Different routes of administration for food allergen immunotherapy including oral, sublingual, epicutaneous and subcutaneous regimens are being evaluated. Although a wealth of data from clinical food allergen immunotherapy trials has been obtained, a lack of consistency in assessed clinical and immunological outcome measures presents a major hurdle for evaluating these new treatments. Coordinated efforts are needed to establish standardized outcome measures to be applied in food allergy immunotherapy studies, allowing for better harmonization of data and setting the standards for the future research. Several immunological parameters have been measured in food allergen immunotherapy, including allergen-specific immunoglobulin levels, basophil activation, cytokines, and other soluble biomarkers, T cell and B cell responses and skin prick tests. In this review we discuss different immunological parameters and assess their applicability as potential outcome measures for food allergen immunotherapy that may be included in such a standardized set of outcome measures.

COST Action 'ImpARAS': what have we learnt to improve food allergy risk assessment. A summary of a 4 year networking consortium.

The growing world population and increased pressure on agricultural resources are driving a shortage of dietary protein sources. As a result, industry is developing more sustainable novel food protein sources such as insects, algae and duckweed and using new processing techniques. Consumer exposure to these novel or processed proteins, could cause new food allergies, exacerbating a public health issue which is already directly affecting an estimated 20 million Europeans. Introduction of novel foods should not add to the burden of food allergy and this calls for a reliable, harmonised, evidence-based and validated allergenicity risk assessment strategy. The COST (Cooperation in Science and Technology) Action ImpARAS (Improved Allergenicity Risk Assessment Strategy), a four-year networking project, identified gaps in current allergy risk assessment, and proposed new ideas and plans for improving it. Here, we report on the lessons learned from the ImpARAS network and suggestions for future research. The safe introduction of novel and more sustainable food protein sources, while protecting humans from food allergy, calls for a multidisciplinary approach based on an improved understanding of what determines the relative allergenic potency of proteins, novel testing and assessment methodologies, harmonized decision-making criteria, and a clear ranking approach to express the allergenicity of novel product relative to that of existing known allergenic proteins: (from 'non'/to weakly and to strongly allergenic proteins).

Homologous tropomyosins from vertebrate and invertebrate: Recombinant calibrator proteins in functional biological assays for tropomyosin allergenicity assessment of novel animal foods.

BACKGROUND: Novel foods may provide new protein sources for a growing world population but entail risks of unexpected food-allergic reactions. No guidance on allergenicity assessment of novel foods exists, while for genetically modified (GM) crops it includes comparison of sequence identity with known allergens, digestibility tests and IgE serum screening. OBJECTIVE: As a proof of concept, to evaluate non-/allergenic tropomyosins (TMs) regarding their potential as new calibrator proteins in functional biological in vitro assays for the semi-quantitative allergy risk assessment of novel TM-containing animal foods with mealworm TM as an example. METHODS: Purified TMs (shrimp, Penaeus monodon; chicken Gallus gallus; E coli overexpression) were compared by protein sequencing, circular dichroism analysis and in vitro digestion. IgE binding was quantified using shrimp-allergic patients' sera (ELISA). Biological activities were investigated (skin testing; titrated basophil activation tests, BAT), compared to titrated biological mediator release using humanized rat basophil leukaemia (RBL) cells. RESULTS: Shrimp and chicken TMs showed high sequence homology, both alpha-helical structures and thermal stability. Shrimp TM was stable during in vitro gastric digestion, chicken TM degraded quickly. Both TMs bound specific IgE from shrimp-allergic patients (significantly higher for shrimp TM), whereas skin reactivity was mostly positive with only shrimp TM. BAT and RBL cell assays were positive with shrimp and chicken TM, although at up to 100- to 1000-times lower allergen concentrations for shrimp than chicken TM. In RBL cell assays using both TM as calibrators, an activation of effector cells by mealworm TM similar to that by shrimp TM confirmed the already reported high allergenic potency of mealworm TM as a novel protein source. CONCLUSIONS & CLINICAL RELEVANCE: According to current GM crops' allergenicity assessment, non-allergenic chicken TM could falsely be considered an allergen on a weight-of-evidence approach. However, calibrating allergenic potency in functional BAT and RBL cell assays with clinically validated TMs allowed for semi-quantitative discrimination of novel food protein's allergenicity. With TM calibration as a proof of concept, similar systems of homologous protein might be developed to scale on an axis of allergenicity.

Allergenicity prediction of novel and modified proteins: Not a mission impossible! Development of a Random Forest allergenicity prediction model.

Alternative and sustainable protein sources (e.g., algae, duckweed, insects) are required to produce (future) foods. However, introduction of new food sources to the market requires a thorough risk assessment of nutritional, microbial and toxicological risks and potential allergic responses. Yet, the risk assessment of allergenic potential of novel proteins is challenging. Currently, guidance for genetically modified proteins relies on a weight-of-evidence approach. Current Codex (2009) and EFSA (2010; 2017) guidance indicates that sequence identity to known allergens is acceptable for predicting the cross-reactive potential of novel proteins and resistance to pepsin digestion and glycosylation status is used for evaluating de novo allergenicity potential. Other physicochemical and biochemical protein properties, however, are not used in the current weight-of-evidence approach. In this study, we have used the Random Forest algorithm for developing an in silico model that yields a prediction of the allergenic potential of a protein based on its physicochemical and biochemical properties. The final model contains twenty-nine variables, which were all calculated using the protein sequence by means of the ProtParam software and the PSIPred Protein Sequence Analysis program. Proteins were assigned as allergenic when present in the COMPARE database. Results show a robust model performance with a sensitivity, specificity and accuracy each greater than ≥85%. As the model only requires the protein sequence for calculations, it can be easily incorporated into the existing risk assessment approach. In conclusion, the model developed in this study improves the predictability of the allergenicity of new or modified food proteins, as demonstrated for insect proteins.

The relevance of a digestibility evaluation in the allergenicity risk assessment of novel proteins. Opinion of a joint initiative of COST action ImpARAS and COST action INFOGEST.

The current allergenicity assessment of novel proteins is based on the EFSA GMO guidance. Recently, EFSA launched a new guidance document on allergenicity assessment of GM plants (2017). This document describes, amongst other topics, the new scientific and regulatory developments on in vitro protein digestibility tests. The EFSA GMO Panel stated that for in vitro protein digestibility tests, additional investigations are needed before any additional recommendation in the form of guidance can be provided. To this end, an interim phase is considered necessary to evaluate the revisions to the in vitro gastrointestinal digestion test, proposed by EFSA. This prompted the establishment of a joint workshop through two COST Action networks: COST Action ImpARAS and COST Acton INFOGEST. In 2017, a workshop was organised to discuss the relevance of digestion in allergenicity risk assessment and how to potentially improve the current methods and readouts. The outcome of the workshop is that there is no rationale for a clear readout that is predictive for allergenicity and we suggest to omit the digestion test from the allergenicity assessment strategy for now, and put an effort into filling the knowledge gaps as summarized in this paper first.

Defining the targets for the assessment of IgE-mediated allergenicity of new or modified food proteins.

Many food innovations rely on the introduction and use of new or modified proteins. New or modified food proteins may lead to major health risks due to their inherent potential to cause food allergy. Currently, the pre-market allergenicity assessment for new or modified food proteins and protein sources relies on methods for identifying allergenic hazards based on characteristics of known allergens. However, there is no general consensus on the allergenicity parameters to use and the criteria that should apply for the evaluation and decisions to be made. In this paper, we propose that the strategy for allergenicity risk assessment of new or modified food proteins and the methodologies applied should be governed by the risk management questions to be answered, reflected in the information needed by risk managers to enable their informed decision making. We generated an inventory of health outcome-related assessment parameters and criteria potentially important for risk management decision-making and we discuss the implications of selecting different optional criteria (e.g. cut-off values) for what could be accepted as safe with regards to the health outcomes in the (at risk) population. The impact of these various options on both method development and risk management practices was investigated.

EAACI position paper: Comparing insect hypersensitivity induced by bite, sting, inhalation or ingestion in human beings and animals.

Adverse reactions to insects occur in both human and veterinary patients. Systematic comparison may lead to improved recommendations for prevention and treatment in all species. In this position paper, we summarize the current knowledge on insect allergy induced via stings, bites, inhalation or ingestion, and compare reactions in companion animals to those in people. With few exceptions, the situation in human insect allergy is better documented than in animals. We focus on a review of recent literature and give overviews of the epidemiology and clinical signs. We discuss allergen sources and allergenic molecules to the extent described, and aspects of diagnosis, prophylaxis, management and therapy.

Legume Protein Consumption and the Prevalence of Legume Sensitization.

Sensitization and allergy to legumes can be influenced by different factors, such as exposure, geographical background, and food processing. Sensitization and the allergic response to legumes differs considerably, however, the reason behind this is not yet fully understood. The aim of this study is to investigate if there is a correlation between legume protein consumption and the prevalence of legume sensitization. Furthermore, the association between sensitization to specific peanut allergens and their concentration in peanut is investigated. Legume sensitization data (peanut, soybean, lupin, lentil, and pea) from studies were analyzed in relation to consumption data obtained from national food consumption surveys using the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Global Environment Monitoring System (GEMS), and What We Eat in America-Food Commodity Intake Database (WWEIA-FCID) databases. Data were stratified for children <4 years, children 4⁻18 years, and adults. Sufficient data were available for peanut to allow for statistical analysis. Analysis of all age groups together resulted in a low correlation between peanut sensitization and relative peanut consumption (r = 0.407), absolute peanut consumption (r = 0.468), and percentage of peanut consumers (r = 0.243). No correlation was found between relative concentrations of Ara h 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8 in peanut and sensitization to these peanut allergens. The results indicate that the amount of consumption only plays a minor role in the prevalence of sensitization to peanut. Other factors, such as the intrinsic properties of the different proteins, processing, matrix, frequency, timing and route of exposure, and patient factors might play a more substantial role in the prevalence of peanut sensitization.

Insect (food) allergy and allergens.

Insects represent an alternative for meat and fish in satisfying the increasing demand for sustainable sources of nutrition. Approximately two billion people globally consume insects. They are particularly popular in Asia, Latin America, and Africa. Most research on insect allergy has focussed on occupational or inhalation allergy. Research on insect food safety, including allergenicity, is therefore of great importance. The objective of this review is to provide an overview of cases reporting allergy following insect ingestion, studies on food allergy to insects, proteins involved in insect allergy including cross-reactive proteins, and the possibility to alter the allergenic potential of insects by food processing and digestion. Food allergy to insects has been described for silkworm, mealworm, caterpillars, Bruchus lentis, sago worm, locust, grasshopper, cicada, bee, Clanis bilineata, and the food additive carmine, which is derived from female Dactylopius coccus insects. For cockroaches, which are also edible insects, only studies on inhalation allergy have been described. Various insect allergens have been identified including tropomyosin and arginine kinase, which are both pan-allergens known for their cross-reactivity with homologous proteins in crustaceans and house dust mite. Cross-reactivity and/or co-sensitization of insect tropomyosin and arginine kinase has been demonstrated in house dust mite and seafood (e.g. prawn, shrimp) allergic patients. In addition, many other (allergenic) species (various non-edible insects, arachnids, mites, seafoods, mammals, nematoda, trematoda, plants, and fungi) have been identified with sequence alignment analysis to show potential cross-reactivity with allergens of edible insects. It was also shown that thermal processing and digestion did not eliminate insect protein allergenicity. Although purified natural allergens are scarce and yields are low, recombinant allergens from cockroach, silkworm, and Indian mealmoth are readily available, giving opportunities for future research on diagnostic allergy tests and vaccine candidates.

Current (Food) Allergenic Risk Assessment: Is It Fit for Novel Foods? Status Quo and Identification of Gaps.

Food allergies are recognized as a global health concern. In order to protect allergic consumers from severe symptoms, allergenic risk assessment for well-known foods and foods containing genetically modified ingredients is installed. However, population is steadily growing and there is a rising need to provide adequate protein-based foods, including novel sources, not yet used for human consumption. In this context safety issues such as a potential increased allergenic risk need to be assessed before marketing novel food sources. Therefore, the established allergenic risk assessment for genetically modified organisms needs to be re-evaluated for its applicability for risk assessment of novel food proteins. Two different scenarios of allergic sensitization have to be assessed. The first scenario is the presence of already known allergenic structures in novel foods. For this, a comparative assessment can be performed and the range of cross-reactivity can be explored, while in the second scenario allergic reactions are observed toward so far novel allergenic structures and no reference material is available. This review summarizes the current analytical methods for allergenic risk assessment, highlighting the strengths and limitations of each method and discussing the gaps in this assessment that need to be addressed in the near future.

Application of the adverse outcome pathway (AOP) concept to structure the available in vivo and in vitro mechanistic data for allergic sensitization to food proteins.

BACKGROUND: The introduction of whole new foods in a population may lead to sensitization and food allergy. This constitutes a potential public health problem and a challenge to risk assessors and managers as the existing understanding of the pathophysiological processes and the currently available biological tools for prediction of the risk for food allergy development and the severity of the reaction are not sufficient. There is a substantial body of in vivo and in vitro data describing molecular and cellular events potentially involved in food sensitization. However, these events have not been organized in a sequence of related events that is plausible to result in sensitization, and useful to challenge current hypotheses. The aim of this manuscript was to collect and structure the current mechanistic understanding of sensitization induction to food proteins by applying the concept of adverse outcome pathway (AOP). MAIN BODY: The proposed AOP for food sensitization is based on information on molecular and cellular mechanisms and pathways evidenced to be involved in sensitization by food and food proteins and uses the AOPs for chemical skin sensitization and respiratory sensitization induction as templates. Available mechanistic data on protein respiratory sensitization were included to fill out gaps in the understanding of how proteins may affect cells, cell-cell interactions and tissue homeostasis. Analysis revealed several key events (KE) and biomarkers that may have potential use in testing and assessment of proteins for their sensitizing potential. CONCLUSION: The application of the AOP concept to structure mechanistic in vivo and in vitro knowledge has made it possible to identify a number of methods, each addressing a specific KE, that provide information about the food allergenic potential of new proteins. When applied in the context of an integrated strategy these methods may reduce, if not replace, current animal testing approaches. The proposed AOP will be shared at the www.aopwiki.org platform to expand the mechanistic data, improve the confidence in each of the proposed KE and key event relations (KERs), and allow for the identification of new, or refinement of established KE and KERs.

Is mealworm or shrimp allergy indicative for food allergy to insects?

SCOPE: The growing world population is a key driver for the exploration of sustainable protein sources to ensure food security. Mealworm and other insects are promising candidates. Previously we found that shrimp allergic patients are at risk for mealworm allergy, and that mealworm can induce a primary allergy . This study set out to investigate the allergenic potential of edible insects, suggested for human consumption by agencies such as WHO/FAO, in both the shrimp (potentially cross-reactive) and primary mealworm allergic population. The following insects were studied: mealworm, house cricket, giant mealworm, lesser mealworm, African grasshopper, large wax moth, and black soldier fly. METHODS AND RESULTS: Fifteen shrimp (mealworm sensitized or allergic) patients and four primary mealworm allergic subjects, who participated in previous studies, were included. All shrimp allergic patients were sensitized to multiple insects with similar response profiles for all insects tested. Primary mealworm allergic patients, showed IgE binding to proteins from only a few insects on immunoblot, although basophil activation test was positive for all tested insects. CONCLUSION: Shrimp allergic patients are most likely at risk of food allergy to mealworm and other insects. Primary mealworm allergy does not mean subjects are likely to react to all insects.