Glycolipid-mediated basophil activation in alpha-gal allergy.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Iweala OI
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7670280 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Glycolipid-mediated basophil activation in alpha-gal allergy.
Iweala Onyinye I OI Choudhary Shailesh K SK Addison Claire T CT Batty Cole J CJ Kapita Camille M CM Amelio Claire C Schuyler Alexander J AJ Deng Shenglou S Bachelder Eric M EM Ainslie Kristy M KM Savage Paul B PB Brennan Patrick J PJ Commins Scott P SP
The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology 20200220 2
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundGlycoproteins and glycolipids of some mammalian species contain the disaccharide galactosyl-α-(1,3)-galactose (α-Gal). It is known that α-Gal is immunogenic in humans and causes glycan-specific IgG and also IgE responses with clinical relevance. α-Gal is part of the IgE-reactive monoclonal therapeutic antibody cetuximab (CTX) and is associated with delayed anaphylaxis to red meat. In this study, different α-Gal-containing analytes are examined in singleplex and multiplex assays to resolve individual sensitization patterns with IgE against α-Gal.MethodsThree serum groups, α-Gal-associated meat allergy (MA) patients, idiopathic anaphylaxis (IA) patients with suspected MA, and non-meat-allergic healthy control individuals (HC), were analyzed via singleplex allergy diagnostics and a newly established immunoblot diagnostic system. The new dot blot detection system resolved individual IgE sensitization profiles for α-Gal-containing analytes CTX, bovine thyroglobulin (Bos d TG), and human serum albumin (HSA)-conjugated α-Gal.ResultsSingleplex allergy diagnostics using the α-Gal analytes CTX and Bos d TG confirms the history of MA patients in 91% and 88% of the cases, respectively. A novel dot blot-based assay system for the detection of IgE against α-Gal reveals individual IgE sensitization profiles for α-Gal-containing analytes. An α-Gal-associated IgE cross-reactivity profile (IgE against CTX, Bos d TG, and HSA-α-Gal) was identified, which is associated with MA.ConclusionsDetection of individual sensitization patterns with different α-Gal-containing analytes provides the basis for an individual allergy diagnosis for α-Gal-sensitized patients. Higher amounts of α-Gal in pork and beef innards compared to muscle meat as indicated by a higher staining intensity are a plausible explanation for the difference in allergic symptom severity.
| S-EPMC7254904 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Plant-food allergy is an increasing problem, with nonspecific lipid transfer proteins (nsLTPs) triggering mild/severe reactions. Pru p 3 is the major sensitizer in LTP food allergy (FA). However, in vivo and in vitro diagnosis is hampered by the need for differentiating between asymptomatic sensitization and allergy with clinical relevance. The basophil activation test (BAT) is an ex vivo method able to identify specific IgE related to the allergic response. Thus, we aimed to establish the value of BAT in a precise diagnosis of LTP-allergic patients. Ninety-two individuals with peach allergy sensitized to LTP, Pru p 3, were finally included, and 40.2% of them had symptoms to peanut (n = 37). In addition, 16 healthy subjects were recruited. BAT was performed with Pru p 3 and Ara h 9 (peanut LTP) at seven ten-fold concentrations, and was evaluated by flow cytometry, measuring the percentage of CD63 (%CD63+) and CD203c (%CD203chigh) cells, basophil allergen threshold sensitivity (CD-Sens), and area under the dose-response curve (AUC). Significant changes in BAT parameters (%CD63+ and %CD203chigh) were found between the controls and patients. However, comparisons for %CD63+, %CD203chigh, AUC, and CD-Sens showed similar levels among patients with different symptoms. An optimal cut-off was established from ROC curves, showing a significant positive percentage of BAT in patients compared to controls and great values of sensitivity (>87.5%) and specificity (>85%). In addition, BAT showed differences in LTP-allergic patients tolerant to peanut using its corresponding LTP, Ara h 9. BAT can be used as a potential diagnostic tool for identifying LTP allergy and for differentiating peanut tolerance, although neither reactivity nor sensitivity can distinguish the severity of the clinical symptoms.
| S-EPMC9105056 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMost of the peanut-sensitized children do not have clinical peanut allergy. In equivocal cases, oral food challenges (OFCs) are required. However, OFCs are laborious and not without risk; thus, a test that could accurately diagnose peanut allergy and reduce the need for OFCs is desirable.ObjectiveTo assess the performance of basophil activation test (BAT) as a diagnostic marker for peanut allergy.MethodsPeanut-allergic (n = 43), peanut-sensitized but tolerant (n = 36) and non-peanut-sensitized nonallergic (n = 25) children underwent skin prick test (SPT) and specific IgE (sIgE) to peanut and its components. BAT was performed using flow cytometry, and its diagnostic performance was evaluated in relation to allergy versus tolerance to peanut and validated in an independent population (n = 65).ResultsBAT in peanut-allergic children showed a peanut dose-dependent upregulation of CD63 and CD203c while there was no significant response to peanut in peanut-sensitized but tolerant (P < .001) and non-peanut-sensitized nonallergic children (P < .001). BAT optimal diagnostic cutoffs showed 97% accuracy, 95% positive predictive value, and 98% negative predictive value. BAT allowed reducing the number of required OFCs by two-thirds. BAT proved particularly useful in cases in which specialists could not accurately diagnose peanut allergy with SPT and sIgE to peanut and to Arah2. Using a 2-step diagnostic approach in which BAT was performed only after equivocal SPT or Arah2-sIgE, BAT had a major effect (97% reduction) on the number of OFCs required.ConclusionsBAT proved to be superior to other diagnostic tests in discriminating between peanut allergy and tolerance, particularly in difficult cases, and reduced the need for OFCs.
| S-EPMC4164910 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6295282 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC5420485 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundConventional basophil activation tests (BATs) measure basophil activation by the increased expression of CD63. Previously, fluorophore-labeled avidin, a positively-charged molecule, was found to bind to activated basophils, which tend to expose negatively charged granule constituents during degranulation. This study further compares avidin versus CD63 as basophil activation biomarkers in classifying peanut allergy.MethodsSeventy subjects with either a peanut allergy (N = 47), a food allergy other than peanut (N = 6), or no food allergy (N = 17) were evaluated. We conducted BATs in response to seven peanut extract (PE) concentrations (0.01-10,000 ng/mL) and four control conditions (no stimulant, anti-IgE, fMLP (N-formylmethionine-leucyl-phenylalanine), and anti-FcεRI). We measured avidin binding and CD63 expression on basophils with flow cytometry. We evaluated logistic regression and XGBoost models for peanut allergy classification and feature identification.ResultsAvidin binding was correlated with CD63 expression. Both markers discriminated between subjects with and without a peanut allergy. Although small by percentage, an avidin+ /CD63- cell subset was found in all allergic subjects tested, indicating that the combination of avidin and CD63 could allow a more comprehensive identification of activated basophils. Indeed, we obtained the best classification accuracy (97.8% sensitivity, 96.7% specificity) by combining avidin and CD63 across seven PE doses. Similar accuracy was obtained by combining PE dose of 10,000 ng/mL for avidin and PE doses of 10 and 100 ng/mL for CD63.ConclusionsAvidin and CD63 are reliable BAT activation markers associated with degranulation. Their combination enhances the identification of activated basophils and improves the classification accuracy of peanut allergy.
| S-EPMC10842984 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PURPOSE:The basophil activation test (BAT) has been reported to be useful for the diagnosis of various food allergies, such as allergy to peanut, but not to fish. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the BAT for fish allergy. METHODS:We performed a retrospective review of patients with fish allergy who underwent the BAT using a panel of fish extracts (15 kinds) to examine the differential reactivity to several species of fish. The BAT score for each extract was expressed as the ratio of CD203chigh% with the extract to that with anti-IgE antibody. Clinical reactivity to each fish was confirmed by positive oral food challenge or a typical history of fish-induced immediate allergy symptoms. Receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed to evaluate the diagnostic performance. RESULTS:Fifty-one patients with fish allergy were analyzed. Using extracts of 15 species of fish, the BAT was performed a total of 184 times on the patients. Clinical allergy to each species of fish was confirmed in 90 (48.9%) of those tests. ROC analysis yielded high areas under the curve for the BAT scores for the 5 most common fish species (0.72-0.88). The diagnostic accuracy ranged from 0.74 to 0.86. Using a tentative cutoff value of 0.3 deduced from the ROC analyses of the 5 fish species, the accuracy for other fish allergic reactions was generally high (0.6-1.0), except the fish tested in a small number of patients. CONCLUSIONS:The BAT score based on CD203c expression may be useful for fish allergy diagnosis, especially since a large variety of fish can be tested by the BAT using fish extracts prepared by a simple method.
| S-EPMC7224992 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Alpha-gal (AG) allergy is an IgE-mediated allergic reaction to galactose-alpha-1,3-galactose found in mammalian meat. Heparin, being derived from porcine intestinal tissue, may have a degree of cross-reactivity with AG antigen and thus place patients at risk for allergic and even anaphylactic reactions. This is especially important in patients with myocardial infarction (MI) and mechanical circulatory support, such as a left ventricular assist device (LVAD), since anticoagulation is immediately required. Therefore, individualized assessment and preoperative planning is needed regarding the use of heparin vs. nonheparinoid products in such a population.
| S-EPMC7048905 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7217730 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7676348 | biostudies-literature