Developments in the field of allergy in 2012 through the eyes of Clinical & Experimental Allergy.

In 2012, we received 683 submissions and published 20 editorials, 38 reviews, 11 letters and 128 original articles. This represents an acceptance rate for original papers in the range of 20%. About 30% of original papers were triaged not to go out to review, either because the editors did not feel they had sufficient priority for publication or because the topic did not feel right for the readers of the journal. We place great emphasis on obtaining sufficient high-quality reviews to make our decisions on publication fair and consistent. Inevitably, however, there is a degree of luck about what gets published and which papers miss out, and we are always happy to receive an appeal on our decisions either at the triage stage or after review. This gives us the opportunity to revisit the decision and revise it or explain in more detail to the authors the basis for the decision. Once again in 2012, we were delighted by the quality of the papers submitted and the breadth and depth of research into allergic disease that it revealed. The pattern of papers submitted was similar in previous years with considerable emphasis on all aspects of asthma and rhinitis. We were particularly pleased with our special issue on severe asthma. Elucidating mechanisms using either animal models or patients has always been a major theme of the journal, and the excellent work in these areas has been summarized by Harissios Vliagoftis with a particularly interesting section on early-life events guiding the development of allergic disease, which understandably continue to be a major theme of research. Magnus Wickman summarized the papers looking at the epidemiology of allergic disease including work from birth cohorts, which are an increasingly rich source of data on risk factors for allergic disease, and two papers on the epidemiology of anaphylaxis. Giovanni Passalacqua discussed the papers in the clinical allergy section of the journal, and Adriano Mari who runs the excellent Allergome website discussed the papers looking at allergens including characterization and the relative usefulness of allergen arrays versus single extracts in diagnosis and management.

The performance of a component-based allergen microarray for the diagnosis of kiwifruit allergy.

BACKGROUND: Allergy to kiwifruit is increasingly reported across Europe. Currently, the reliability of its diagnosis by the measurement of allergen-specific IgE with extracts or by skin testing with fresh fruits is unsatisfying. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the usefulness of a component-based allergen microarray for the diagnosis of kiwifruit allergy in a large group of patients. METHODS: With an allergen microarray, we measured specific IgE and IgG4 levels to a panel of nine kiwifruit allergens in sera of 237 individuals with kiwifruit allergy. Sera from 198 allergic patients without kiwifruit allergy served as controls. Furthermore, we determined the extent of sensitization to latex. RESULTS: The panel of kiwifruit allergens showed a diagnostic sensitivity of 66%, a specificity of 56% and a positive predictive value of 73%. Sera from kiwifruit-allergic patients contained significantly more frequently Act d 1-specific IgE than sera from control patients. Furthermore, 51% of the positive sera contained IgE directed to a single allergen, namely Act d 1 (45%), Act d 9 (27%) or Act d 7 (13%). Within the control group, 36% sera recognized a single allergen. Out of those, 48% were positive to the cross-reactive glycoallergen Act d 7, 43% to the profilin Act d 9 and only 5% to Act d 1. Allergen-specific IgG4 levels did not differ between kiwifruit-allergic and -tolerant patients. Kiwifruit- and latex-allergic patients contained Hev b 11-specific IgE significantly more frequently than latex-allergic patients without kiwifruit allergy. CONCLUSIONS: Act d 1 can be considered a marker allergen for genuine sensitization to kiwifruit. We demonstrated that a component-based kiwifruit allergen microarray would improve the prognostic value of in vitro diagnostic tests.