4.5 Article

Expression, purification, characterization and clinical relevance of rAed a 1-a 68-kDa recombinant mosquito Aedes aegypti salivary allergen

期刊

INTERNATIONAL IMMUNOLOGY
卷 13, 期 12, 页码 1445-1452

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/intimm/13.12.1445

关键词

Aed a 1; baculovirus/insect cell expression system; cDNA; insect allergy; skin test

资金

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [AI29446] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Accurate diagnosis of mosquito allergy has been precluded by the difficulty of obtaining salivary allergens. In this study, we expressed, purified, characterized and investigated the clinical relevance of a recombinant Aedes aegyptisalivary allergen, rAed a 1. Two cDNA segments were ligated together to form the full-length Aed a 1 gene. rAed a 1 was expressed using a baculovirus/insect cell system, and purified using a combination of anion-exchange and gel-filtration chromatography. The purified rAed a 1 bound to human IgE, as detected by ELISA, ELISA inhibition tests and immunoblot analyses. Epicutaneous tests with rAed a 1 and a commercial whole-body Ae. aegyptiextract, and Ae. aegyptibite tests were performed in 48 subjects. Nine of 31 (29%) of the subjects with positive immediate bite tests also had a positive rAed a 1 immediate skin reaction and 32% had an positive immediate test to the commercial extract. Six of 33 (18%) of the subjects with positive delayed bite tests also had a positive rAed a 1 delayed skin reaction and 6% had a positive delayed test to the commercial extract. Furthermore, rAed a 1-induced flare sizes significantly correlated with mosquito bite-induced flare sizes. None of the subjects with negative bite tests had a positive skin test to rAed a 1 or to commercial extract. We conclude that the rAed a 1 has identical antigenicity and biological activity to native Aed a 1, can be used in the in vitroand in vivodiagnosis of mosquito allergy, and is more sensitive than mosquito whole-body extract for detecting delayed skin reactions.

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