|
Goikoetxea MJ*1,
DAmelio CM*1, Martínez-Aranguren R1,
Gamboa P2, Garcia BE3, Gómez F4,
Fernández J5, Bartra J6, Parra A7,
Alvarado MI8, Alonso MI9, González
E10, Terrados S11, Moya C12,
Blanca-López N13, Feo-Brito F14,
Villalba M15, Díaz-Perales A16,
Sanz ML1 |
|
1Department of Allergy and
Clinical Immunology, Clinica Universidad de Navarra,
Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Navarra,
Pamplona, Spain
2Allergy Department, Hospital de Basurto,
Bilbao, Spain
3Allergy Department, Complejo Hospitalario de
Navarra, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Navarra,
Pamplona, Spain
4Allergy Department, Hospital Regional
Universitario de Málaga, IBIMA, Málaga, Spain
5Allergy Department, Hospital General
Universitario de Alicante, Alicante, Spain
6Allergy, Respiratory, and Respiratory
Allergy Department, Hospital Clinic, Universitat de
Barcelona, Institut dInvestigacions Biomédiques August
Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Centro de Investigaciones
Biomédicas en Red de Enfermedades Respiratorias (CIBERES)
7Allergy Department, Hospital de A Coruña, A
Coruña, Spain
8 Allergy Department, Hospital Virgen del
Puerto, Plasencia, Cáceres, Spain
9Allergy Department, Hospital de Alcorcón,
Madrid, Spain
10Allergy Department, Hospital de Fuenlabrada,
Madrid, Spain
11Allergy Department, Hospital Ramón y Cajal,
Madrid, Spain
12Allergy Department, Complejo Hopitalario
Torrecárdenas, Almeria, Spain
13Allergy Department, Hospital Infanta Leonor,
Madrid, Spain
14Allergy Department, Hospital General
Universitario de Ciudad Real, Ciudad Real, Spain
15Molecular Biology Department, Facultad de
Químicas, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain
16Biotechnology Department, Centro de
Biotecnología y Genómica de Plantas, Pozuelo de Alarcón,
Madrid, Spain
*Both authors contributed equally to this
work. |
|
Abstract |
|
Background:
Component-based
diagnosis on
multiplex platforms
is widely used in
food allergy but its
clinical performance
has not been
evaluated in nut
allergy.
Objective: To
assess the
diagnostic
performance of a
commercial protein
microarray in the
determination of
specific IgE (sIgE)
in peanut, hazelnut,
and walnut allergy.
Methods: sIgE
was measured in 36
peanut-allergic, 36
hazelnut-allergic,
and 44
walnut-allergic
patients by ISAC
112, and
subsequently, sIgE
against available
components was
determined by
ImmunoCAP in
patients with
negative ISAC
results. ImmunoCAP
was also used to
measure sIgE to Ara
h 9, Cor a 8, and
Jug r 3 in a
subgroup of lipid
transfer protein (LTP)-sensitized
nut-allergic
patients (positive
skin prick test to
LTP-enriched
extract). sIgE
levels by ImmunoCAP
were compared with
ISAC ranges.
Results: Most
peanut-, hazelnut-,
and walnut-allergic
patients were
sensitized to the
corresponding nut
LTP (Ara h 9, 66.7%;
Cor a 8, 80.5%; Jug
r 3, 84%
respectively).
However, ISAC did
not detect sIgE in
33.3% of
peanut-allergic
patients, 13.9% of
hazelnut-allergic
patients, or 13.6%
of walnut-allergic
patients. sIgE
determination by
ImmunoCAP detected
sensitization to Ara
h 9, Cor a 8, and
Jug r 3 in,
respectively, 61.5%
of peanut-allergic
patients, 60% of
hazelnut-allergic
patients, and 88.3%
of walnut-allergic
patients with
negative ISAC
results. In the
subgroup of peach
LTPsensitized
patients, Ara h 9
sIgE was detected in
more cases by
ImmunoCAP than by
ISAC (94.4% vs
72.2%, P<.05).
Similar rates of Cor
a 8 and Jug r 3
sensitization were
detected by both
techniques.
Conclusions:
The diagnostic
performance of ISAC
was adequate for
hazelnut and walnut
allergy but not for
peanut allergy. sIgE
sensitivity against
Ara h 9 in ISAC
needs to be
improved.
Key words:
Hazelnut. Lipid
transfer protein.
Microarray. Peanut.
Walnut. |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
