4.5 Article

Differential IgE binding to isoallergens from Asian seabass (Lates calcarifer) in children and adults

期刊

MOLECULAR IMMUNOLOGY
卷 62, 期 1, 页码 77-85

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.molimm.2014.05.010

关键词

Allergen; Parvalbumin; Asian seabass; IgE; Fish; Barramundi

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fish allergy is a common food allergy, with prevalence rates in the general population ranging between 0.2% and 2.3%. In both adults and children fish ranks in the top eight foods known to cause IgE mediated food allergy. Fish allergy is rarely outgrown and individuals with fish allergy may be allergic to some but not all species of fish. Whilst fish allergy occurs around the world, the characterization of allergenic components of individual species of fish has been largely confined to Northern hemisphere and European fish species. To date allergy to commonly consumed fish in the Asian-Pacific region including barramundi (Asian seabass; Lates calcarifer) have been less well investigated. The aim of this study was to identify and characterize allergenic proteins from barramundi in both fish allergic adult and pediatric patients. Serum from 17 fish allergic adults and children from Australia were characterized by immunoblotting and enzyme linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) against raw and heated barramundi. Molecular analysis of identified allergens included genetic sequencing and generation of recombinant isoallergens. Two novel parvalbumin isoforms of the beta-type were identified as the only allergens in barramundi and subsequently designated as Lat c 1.0101 and Lat c 1.0201 by the International Union of Immunological Societies. These two isoallergens do not differ in their ability to bind IgE antibodies, but are differentially expressed in barramundi tissue. This study characterized two novel heat stable parvalbumin allergens from barramundi, with differential IgE binding capacity between adults and pediatric patients. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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