4.4 Review

Hierarchy and molecular properties of house dust mite allergens

期刊

ALLERGOLOGY INTERNATIONAL
卷 64, 期 4, 页码 304-311

出版社

JAPANESE SOCIETY ALLERGOLOGY
DOI: 10.1016/j.alit.2015.05.004

关键词

Allergens; Allergy; Blomia; Dermatophagoides; House dust mite

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The allergenic load of house dust mite allergy is largely constituted by a few proteins with a hierarchical pattern of allergenicity. The serodominant specificities are the group 1&2 and the group 23 faecal allergens. The collective IgE binding to the group 1&2 allergens can measure unequivocal HDM sensitisation better than HDM extracts although discrepancies have been found in regions with complex acarofauna suggesting a need to investigate the specificity with allergen components. The group 4, 5, 7&21 allergens that each induce responses in about 40% of subjects are mid-tier allergens accounting for most of the remaining IgE binding. Their titres are proportional to the concomitant responses to Der p1&2. Group 2 allergen variants have different antibody binding. Body proteins only occasionally induce sensitisation although a higher prevalence of binding by atopic dermatitis patients provides a new avenue of research. A broad spectrum of IgE binding has been associated with diverse symptoms but not with the severity of asthma which is associated with low IgG antibody. Some allergens such as the group 14 large lipid binding proteins and the recently described proteins Der f 24-33, need further investigation but with the cognoscence that other denominated allergens have been found to be minor sensitisers by comparative quantitative analyses. Scabies is a confounder for diagnosis with extracts, inducing cross-reactive antibodies with Der p 4&20 as is seafood allergy with cross reactivity to Der p 10 a minor HDM allergen. The HDM genome sequence can now be used to verify allelic and paralogous variations. Copyright (C) 2015, Japanese Society of Allergology. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V.

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

4.4
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