3.8 Article

Fish Allergy Management: From Component-Resolved Diagnosis to Unmet Diagnostic Needs

Journal

CURRENT TREATMENT OPTIONS IN ALLERGY
Volume 6, Issue 4, Pages 322-337

Publisher

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1007/s40521-019-00235-w

Keywords

Allergen; Component-resolved diagnosis; Fish allergy; Food; Parvalbumin

Categories

Funding

  1. Ministry of Research, Luxembourg
  2. Fonds National de la Recherche (FNR), Luxembourg [PRIDE/11012546/NEXTIMMUNE]
  3. Personalized Medicine Consortium Luxembourg
  4. FCT Foundation for Science and Technology [UID/Multi/04326/2019]
  5. FCT [SFRH/BD/136319/2018]
  6. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BD/136319/2018] Funding Source: FCT

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose of reviewFish is a common elicitor of IgE-mediated food allergy. Fish includes a large variety of foods, in terms of species and food processing, with marked distinction in local diets around the globe. Fish-allergic patients present with phenotypic diversity and major differences in levels of clinical cross-reactivity, features that pose an important challenge for the clinical diagnosis and management.Recent findingsParvalbumin is the major fish allergen. However, a single molecule is not sufficient but several homologs, allergens different from parvalbumin and allergen extracts, are needed for IgE-based diagnosis.SummaryParvalbumin-specific IgE are markers for clinical cross-reactions. Added value is provided by IgE typing to parvalbumin homologs from distantly related fish. IgE co-sensitization profiles (parvalbumin, enolase, aldolase) are referred as severity markers. The allergen panel seems to be not yet complete why fish extracts still play a crucial role in serum IgE analysis. Further clinical validation of a multiplex approach in molecular fish allergy diagnosis is needed for striving to avoid unnecessary food restrictions and in a further sense, improved patient care.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available