4.4 Article

Concomitant sensitization to ragweed and mugwort pollen: who is who in clinical allergy?

期刊

ANNALS OF ALLERGY ASTHMA & IMMUNOLOGY
卷 113, 期 3, 页码 307-313

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.anai.2014.06.009

关键词

-

资金

  1. Italian Ministry of University and Research
  2. Lombardy Region

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: In many areas of Europe, double sensitization to ragweed and mugwort is common, and because of the overlapping flowering periods of the 2 plants, it is not possible to diagnose the primary sensitizing allergen source and hence to determine the proper immunotherapy. Objectives: To elucidate whether double-sensitized patients are cosensitized or cross-sensitized and, in the latter case, to define the primary sensitizer. Methods: Serum samples from 34 patients with late summer respiratory allergy underwent skin prick testing with whole ragweed, and mugwort extracts were analyzed for their reactivity to recombinant Art v 1 and Amb a 1 by ImmunoCAP and then to Amb a 1, Art v 6, and Art v 1 isoforms by a proteomic approach. In double reactors, the primary sensitizing sources were detected by inhibition experiments. Results: Serum samples from patients monosensitized to ragweed contained IgE to epitopes specific of all Amb a 1 isoforms. In contrast, serum samples from double reactors found to be primarily sensitized to mugwort reacted to Art v 1 and Art v 6 and cross-reacted to a few Amb a 1 isoforms. Finally, serum samples from double reactors found to be primarily sensitized to ragweed contained IgE reacting to all Amb a 1 isoforms, part of which cross-reacted to Art v 6. We did not find cosensitized patients. Conclusion: This study found that Art v 6 plays an important role in mugwort allergy and that the cross-reactivity between Art v 6 and Amb a 1 is frequent, bidirectional, and clinically relevant in the area of Milan. (C) 2014 American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc.

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