4.5 Article

Microarray-based IgE detection in tears of patients with vernal keratoconjunctivitis

期刊

PEDIATRIC ALLERGY AND IMMUNOLOGY
卷 26, 期 7, 页码 641-645

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/pai.12450

关键词

tear IgE; microarray; vernal keratoconjunctivitis; conjunctival provocation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: A specific allergen sensitization can be demonstrated in approximately half of the vernal keratoconjunctivitis (VKC) patients by conventional allergic tests. The measurement of specific IgE in tears using a multiplex allergen microarray may offer advantages to identify local sensitization to a specific allergen. Methods: In spring-summer 2011, serum and tears samples were collected from 10 active VKC patients (three females, seven males) and 10 age-matched normal subjects. Skin prick test, symptoms score and full ophthalmological examination were performed. Specific serum and tear IgE were assayed using ImmunoCAP ISAC, a microarray containing 103 components derived from 47 allergens. Results: Normal subjects resulted negative for the presence of specific IgE both in serum and in tears. Of the 10 VKC patients, six resulted positive to specific IgE in serum and/or tears. In three of these six patients, specific IgE was found positive only in tears. Cross-reactivity between specific markers was found in three patients. Grass, tree, mites, animal but also food allergen-specific IgE were found in tears. Conjunctival provocation test performed out of season confirmed the specific local conjunctival reactivity. Conclusions: Multiple specific IgE measurements with single protein allergens using a microarray technique in tear samples are a useful, simple and non-invasive diagnostic tool. ImmunoCAP ISAC detects allergen sensitization at component level and adds important information by defining both cross-and co-sensitization to a large variety of allergen molecules. The presence of specific IgE only in tears of VKC patients reinforces the concept of possible local sensitization.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据