The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology · 1996
Skin testing with recombinant allergens rBet v 1 and birch profilin, rBet v 2: diagnostic value for birch pollen and associated allergies.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Pauli G, Oster J P, Deviller P, Heiss S, Bessot J C, Susani M, Ferreira F, Kraft D, Valenta R
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This study assesses the value of two recombinant birch allergens for diagnosis of patients sensitized to birch pollen with or without associated food allergy.
METHODS: Fifty-one patients with positive skin test responses to Betulaceae and seven nonallergic control subjects were investigated; specific IgE antibodies were evaluated by specific immunoassay and blot immunodetection.
RESULTS: Among 51 patients, 47 reacted to rBet v 1 and 10 to rBet v 2. Seven patients reacted to both recombinant allergens. In skin prick tests we found a correlation between the wheal produced by the commercial birch extract and the wheal produced by rBet v 1. Among 47 patients with positive test responses to rBet v 1, 83% had IgE binding to the Bet v 1 protein as determined by immunoblotting. Among 10 patients sensitized to rBet v 2, six had IgE binding to Bet v 2. Eleven patients with negative results, as determined by immunoblotting, had low levels of birch IgE in the sera (less than 10 kU/L) and low concentrations of IgE to rBet v 1 or rBet v 2 in ELISA. The nonallergic control subjects (n = 7) did not react to rBet v 1 or rBet v 2 in skin prick tests, nor did they have detectable amounts of specific IgE to rBet v 1 or rBet v 2. Histamine release tests confirmed sensitization to Bet v 1 in two patients with discordant results; for Bet v 2, one patient had positive results only at a high concentration, and one had results that remained negative. Thirty-four patients had birch pollinosis, and all reacted to rBet v 1. Patients who were monosensitized to birch never reacted to rBet v 2. Sensitization to rBet v 2 was only found in patients who reacted to other pollens (mainly grass). Twenty-nine patients demonstrated allergy to apples, cherries, or hazelnuts; and all reacted to rBet v 1. Among 11 patients with allergy to Umbelliferae, only three reacted to rBet v 2.
CONCLUSIONS: Use of the two recombinant allergens (rBet v 1 and rBet v 2) always permits the diagnosis of birch sensitization. Sensitization to rBet v 1 is specific for birch and Rosaceae allergies, whereas sensitization to birch profilin, Bet v 2, is encountered in multisensitized subjects and is not always related to Umbelliferae allergy.
METHODS: Fifty-one patients with positive skin test responses to Betulaceae and seven nonallergic control subjects were investigated; specific IgE antibodies were evaluated by specific immunoassay and blot immunodetection.
RESULTS: Among 51 patients, 47 reacted to rBet v 1 and 10 to rBet v 2. Seven patients reacted to both recombinant allergens. In skin prick tests we found a correlation between the wheal produced by the commercial birch extract and the wheal produced by rBet v 1. Among 47 patients with positive test responses to rBet v 1, 83% had IgE binding to the Bet v 1 protein as determined by immunoblotting. Among 10 patients sensitized to rBet v 2, six had IgE binding to Bet v 2. Eleven patients with negative results, as determined by immunoblotting, had low levels of birch IgE in the sera (less than 10 kU/L) and low concentrations of IgE to rBet v 1 or rBet v 2 in ELISA. The nonallergic control subjects (n = 7) did not react to rBet v 1 or rBet v 2 in skin prick tests, nor did they have detectable amounts of specific IgE to rBet v 1 or rBet v 2. Histamine release tests confirmed sensitization to Bet v 1 in two patients with discordant results; for Bet v 2, one patient had positive results only at a high concentration, and one had results that remained negative. Thirty-four patients had birch pollinosis, and all reacted to rBet v 1. Patients who were monosensitized to birch never reacted to rBet v 2. Sensitization to rBet v 2 was only found in patients who reacted to other pollens (mainly grass). Twenty-nine patients demonstrated allergy to apples, cherries, or hazelnuts; and all reacted to rBet v 1. Among 11 patients with allergy to Umbelliferae, only three reacted to rBet v 2.
CONCLUSIONS: Use of the two recombinant allergens (rBet v 1 and rBet v 2) always permits the diagnosis of birch sensitization. Sensitization to rBet v 1 is specific for birch and Rosaceae allergies, whereas sensitization to birch profilin, Bet v 2, is encountered in multisensitized subjects and is not always related to Umbelliferae allergy.