Journal Mobile Options
Table of Contents
Vol. 156, No. 3, 2011
Issue release date: October 2011
Editor's Choice -- Free Access
Int Arch Allergy Immunol 2011;156:282–290
(DOI:10.1159/000323891)

Evaluation of IgE Antibodies to Recombinant Peanut Allergens in Patients with Reported Reactions to Peanut

Movérare R.a, b · Ahlstedt S.c, e · Bengtsson U.e · Borres M.P.a, f · van Hage M.d · Poorafshar M.a · Sjölander S.a · Åkerström J.g · van Odijk J.e
aPhadia AB, and bDepartment of Medical Sciences, Respiratory Medicine and Allergology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, cCenter of Allergy Research, National Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, and dClinical Immunology and Allergy Unit, Department of Medicine, Karolinska Institutet and University Hospital, Stockholm, Departments of eRespiratory Medicine and Allergology, and fPediatrics, Sahlgrenska Academy at Göteborg University, and gAsthma and Allergy Clinic, Department of Respiratory Medicine and Allergology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden
email Corresponding Author

Abstract

Background: Peanut may cause severe reactions in allergic individuals. The objective was to evaluate IgE antibodies to various recombinant (r) peanut and birch pollen allergens in relation to IgE levels to whole peanut extract and severe allergic reactions to peanut. Methods: Seventy-four Swedish peanut-allergic patients (age: 14–61 years) reported previous peanut exposure and associated symptoms using a questionnaire. Their IgE reactivity to peanut, birch pollen and individual allergen components was analyzed using ImmunoCAP®. Results: Of the 48 subjects sensitized to Ara h 1, 2 or 3, 60% had peanut-specific IgE levels >15 kUA/l, while 100% of the subjects without detectable IgE to these allergens had low peanut-specific IgE levels (<10 kUA/l). The levels of IgE to rAra h 8, rBet v 1 and birch pollen were highly correlated (rS = 0.94, p < 0.0001). Fifty-eight patients reported adverse reactions after accidental or deliberate peanut exposure (oral, inhalation or skin) of whom 41 had IgE to rAra h 1, 2 or 3. Symptoms of respiratory distress were associated with sensitization to Ara h 1, 2 or 3 (56 vs. 18%, p < 0.01). Two cases of anaphylaxis were reported among the individuals sensitized to Ara h 1–3. IgE to rAra h 8, rAra h 9, profilin or cross-reactive carbohydrate determinants were not associated with severe symptoms. Conclusions: The results indicate that IgE reactivity to Ara h 1, 2 and 3 is associated with severe reactions after exposure to peanut in Swedish patients.


 Outline


 goto top of outline Key Words

  • Allergy
  • Ara h 1
  • Ara h 2
  • Ara h 3
  • Ara h 8
  • Ara h 9
  • Peanut
  • Recombinant allergens
  • Sensitization
  • Severe symptoms

 goto top of outline Abstract

Background: Peanut may cause severe reactions in allergic individuals. The objective was to evaluate IgE antibodies to various recombinant (r) peanut and birch pollen allergens in relation to IgE levels to whole peanut extract and severe allergic reactions to peanut. Methods: Seventy-four Swedish peanut-allergic patients (age: 14–61 years) reported previous peanut exposure and associated symptoms using a questionnaire. Their IgE reactivity to peanut, birch pollen and individual allergen components was analyzed using ImmunoCAP®. Results: Of the 48 subjects sensitized to Ara h 1, 2 or 3, 60% had peanut-specific IgE levels >15 kUA/l, while 100% of the subjects without detectable IgE to these allergens had low peanut-specific IgE levels (<10 kUA/l). The levels of IgE to rAra h 8, rBet v 1 and birch pollen were highly correlated (rS = 0.94, p < 0.0001). Fifty-eight patients reported adverse reactions after accidental or deliberate peanut exposure (oral, inhalation or skin) of whom 41 had IgE to rAra h 1, 2 or 3. Symptoms of respiratory distress were associated with sensitization to Ara h 1, 2 or 3 (56 vs. 18%, p < 0.01). Two cases of anaphylaxis were reported among the individuals sensitized to Ara h 1–3. IgE to rAra h 8, rAra h 9, profilin or cross-reactive carbohydrate determinants were not associated with severe symptoms. Conclusions: The results indicate that IgE reactivity to Ara h 1, 2 and 3 is associated with severe reactions after exposure to peanut in Swedish patients.

Copyright © 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel


goto top of outline Introduction

Peanut is the most common food involved in fatal allergic reactions in western countries [1,2,3]. Accidental peanut consumption may cause severe allergic reactions in susceptible individuals. Severe reactions due to food allergy caused 48 deaths in the UK from 1999 to 2006 [2], for which peanut and tree nuts seemed to be commonly responsible [2,4]. In contrast to other common food allergies in childhood, peanut allergy is often a lifelong disease [5]. The prevalence of peanut allergy has increased and has been estimated to be between 0.5 and 2% [6,7]. The symptoms upon peanut ingestion might vary from mild reactions, such as urticaria and oral allergy syndrome (OAS), to respiratory distress and severe systemic reactions needing medical care, such as anaphylactic shock. Peanut sensitization, determined by allergen-specific IgE analysis in blood or skin prick testing to peanut extract, unfortunately has a low positive predictive value since many sensitized individuals are tolerant to peanut [8,9]. Such imprecision might be due to cross-reactive IgE antibodies displaying low clinical significance like IgE antibodies induced by profilins or PR-10 proteins in pollen that cross-react with their peanut homologues Ara h 5 and Ara h 8, respectively [10,11,12], or IgE to cross-reactive carbohydrate determinants (CCDs) [13].

The peanut seed storage proteins Ara h 1 (vicilin), Ara h 2 (conglutin) and Ara h 3 (glycinin) are all major allergens and seem to be responsible for primary sensitization to peanut in susceptible individuals [14,15]. IgE antibodies to the peanut storage proteins have been suggested as risk markers for severe allergic reactions in peanut-sensitized individuals [16]. Even if double-blind placebo-controlled food challenges are regarded as the gold standard in the diagnosis of food allergy, many individuals with a known peanut sensitization and a history of adverse reactions to peanut are never challenged. These individuals often spend their lives with the fear of severe or even deadly reactions to accidental exposure to peanut. However, not all of them will react with severe symptoms upon peanut exposure and further studies are warranted to find diagnostic tools to identify the patients with the highest risk of fatal reactions. Analysis of the IgE reactivity pattern to various peanut allergens has been suggested as such a tool.

The aim of this study was to analyze IgE antibodies to recombinant allergens from peanut (rAra h 1, 2, 3, 8 and 9) and birch pollen [rBet v 1 and rBet v 2 (profilin)], and CCD in patients with a suspected peanut allergy, mostly young adults living in a birch-abundant region, and to evaluate the association between different IgE reactivity patterns with reported symptoms to peanut and peanut-containing foods.

 

goto top of outline Material and Methods

goto top of outline Study Design

The study group of 74 patients was composed of mostly young adults (median age: 23 years, range: 14–61 years, 47 females and 27 males) living in the western area of Sweden (Gothenburg). Inclusion criteria were a known peanut sensitization and a history of suspected peanut allergy. Thirty-three of them (A1–A33) originated from a larger previously described cohort of peanut-sensitized children and adolescents followed for more than 15 years [17]. The other 41 individuals (B1–B41) were patients at the Asthma and Allergy Clinic at Sahlgrenska University Hospital. The participants were asked to complete a questionnaire with detailed questions regarding known exposure to peanut and allergic symptoms. The symptom categories were: Eczema, Urticaria, Facial Edema (swelling in neck, lips and face), OAS (itching throat and face), Abdominal Pain (stomach ache, diarrhea), Respiratory Distress (asthma, dyspnea), and Other Symptoms (as indicated by the patient). The patients also reported whether they suffered from other allergies (birch pollen, timothy pollen, hazelnut, soy bean, lentil, pea, almond, liquorice, carrot, potato, apple, pear, plum, kiwi and strawberry). The questionnaire was reviewed by an investigator (J.Å.) before database entry. Venous blood samples were collected for serum preparation. The sera were frozen at –20°C until analysis. The two patient groups (A1–A33 and B1–B41) did not significantly differ regarding gender or reported peanut exposure. However, the A1–A33 group (median age: 18 years, range: 14–30 years) was significantly younger than the B1–B41 group (median age: 26 years, range: 15–61 years, p < 0.0001). The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the University of Gothenburg.

goto top of outline Allergen-Specific IgE Measurements

The serum samples were analyzed using ImmunoCAP® (Phadia AB, Uppsala, Sweden) for IgE reactivity to recombinant (r) Ara h 1, rAra h 2, rAra h 3, rAra h 8, rAra h 9, rBet v 1, rBet v 2, CCD, peanut extract and birch pollen extract. IgE antibody levels >0.10 kUA/l were considered positive.

goto top of outline Statistics

The Mann-Whitney U test and Fisher’s exact test (both two-tailed) were used for pair-wise comparisons of continuous parameters (specific IgE concentrations) and categorical data between groups, respectively. Spearman’s rank correlation test was used to establish the strength of the relationship between IgE antibody levels. All p values <0.05 were considered significant.

 

goto top of outline Results

goto top of outline IgE Reactivity Patterns

Forty-eight patients (65%) had IgE antibodies to at least one of the recombinant peanut storage proteins rAra h 1, rAra h 2 or rAra h 3 (group positive for Ara h 1–3). Polysensitization to 2 or 3 of these allergens was common, and the IgE levels to these allergens were correlated (rS = 0.78–0.91, p < 0.0001) whereas sensitization to only one of the components was uncommon but existed occasionally (tables 1, 2).

TAB01
Table 1. Patient data (subjects A1–A33) sorted by peanut exposure (A1–A25), reported respiratory distress (A1–A9), sensitization to Ara h 1, 2 and/or 3 (A1–A18 and A26–A31) and IgE levels to peanut

TAB02
Table 2. Patient data (subjects B1–B41) sorted by peanut exposure (B1–B33), reported respiratory distress (B1–B17), sensitization to Ara h 1, 2 and/or 3 (B1–B14, B18–B26 and B34) and IgE levels to peanut

Twenty-six patients (35%) had no detectable IgE to rAra h 1, rAra h 2 or rAra h 3 (group negative for Ara h 1–3). This group of patients did not differ from the group positive for Ara h 1–3 regarding IgE reactivity to rAra h 8.

The patients in the group positive for Ara h 1–3 had significantly higher peanut-specific IgE levels than those in the group negative for Ara h 1–3 (median: 21.0 kUA/l, range: 0.37–>100 kUA/l versus median: 0.73 kUA/l, range: <0.10–9.90 kUA/l, p < 0.0001). Twenty-nine patients (60%) in the group positive for Ara h 1–3 had peanut-specific IgE levels above the suggested 95% predictive clinical decision point of 15 kUA/l, i.e. the identified level for a risk of allergic reactions upon oral challenge [18]. None of the patients in the group negative for Ara h 1–3 had peanut-specific IgE levels above the positive decision point (p < 0.01).

All subjects with IgE reactivity to rAra h 8 (n = 52) also had IgE to birch pollen and all but 1 had IgE to rBet v 1, and the IgE antibody levels highly correlated (rS = 0.94–0.98, p < 0.0001). Five peanut-sensitized individuals did not have IgE to any of the peanut components included. All of them had low levels of IgE to whole peanut extract (range: 0.17–2.16 kUA/l). Three of them had IgE to CCD and one had IgE to profilin (rBet v 2). One subject was peanut negative (<0.10 kUA/l) but had low IgE levels to rAra h 8 (0.63 kUA/l). Concordantly, several subjects in the group negative for Ara h 1–3 had low IgE levels to peanut while they had high IgE levels to rAra h 8 (tables 1, 2).

There was no significant difference between the A1–A33 and B1–B41 patients included in the present study regarding their IgE levels to peanut (tables 1, 2) or the prevalence of IgE reactivity to individual allergenic components (table 3).

TAB03
Table 3. Prevalence of IgE reactivity to peanut, birch pollen and individual allergenic components in the two groups of patients included in the present study

goto top of outline Reported Symptoms

Besides their peanut allergy, most patients also reported birch and timothy pollen allergy and other food allergies (tables 1, 2). It was more common with self-reported birch pollen allergy and apple allergy in the group negative for Ara h 1–3 than in the group positive for Ara h 1–3 (fig. 1a).

FIG01
F01B
Fig. 1. Reported other allergies (a) and reported symptoms to peanut in exposed patients (b) in relation to sensitization to Ara h 1, 2 and 3. ■= Positive for Ara h 1–3, sIgE levels to peanut >15 kUA/l; ▨= positive for Ara h 1–3, sIgE levels to peanut <15 kUA/l; &karsi020;= negative for Ara h 1–3, all patients had sIgE levels to peanut <15 kUA/l. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.

According to the questionnaires, 58 patients had had an adverse reaction after they had eaten peanut or peanut-containing foods accidentally or deliberately (13 cases), or had been exposed to peanut via skin contact or inhalation. Forty-one (71%) of them belonged to the group positive for Ara h 1–3. The time since the last known reaction to peanut varied from <1 to 24 years prior to the blood sampling (median: 5 years, 25% percentile: <1 year, 75% percentile: 12.5 years) and did not significantly differ between the group positive for Ara h 1–3 and the negative group (data not shown). The reported exposure dose varied from just a taste of peanut-containing food (spitting it out), inhalation of peanut dust or skin contact with peanut, to ingestion of larger amounts of peanut-containing food. However, it was impossible to recall the actual amount of peanut protein in each exposure.

Twenty-six cases (45%) of respiratory distress were reported (considered as severe symptom). Most of them belonged to the group positive for Ara h 1–3 (i.e. 56 vs. 18% of the patients in the group positive for Ara h 1–3 and the negative group, respectively, p < 0.01, fig. 1b). No association was observed between respiratory distress caused by peanut exposure and pollen-induced asthma (data not shown). Other common symptoms reported were facial edema (64%), OAS (62%) and urticaria (43%). No association was observed between sensitization to Ara h 1, Ara h 2 or Ara h 3 and these symptoms (considered as mild symptoms) following peanut exposure (fig. 1b). Twelve patients in the group positive for Ara h 1–3 but none in the negative group (p < 0.05) reported other symptoms which included 2 cases of anaphylaxis (fig. 1b). Also when studying the subgroup of patients with IgE levels to peanut below the 95% predictive clinical decision point of 15 kUA/l, IgE to rAra h 1, 2 and/or 3 was statistically associated with severe symptoms (60 vs. 18% of the patients in the group positive for Ara h 1–3 and the negative group, respectively, p < 0.05, fig 1, 2).

FIG02
Fig. 2. Flow-chart of sensitization pattern and reported severe or mild symptoms.

Thirteen subjects (76%) of those 17 who reported symptoms after peanut exposure in the group negative for Ara h 1–3 were sensitized to Ara h 8. Eleven (85%) of them reported OAS after peanut exposure, 5 (38%) urticaria, 4 (31%) abdominal pain and 2 (15%) respiratory distress. OAS was the only symptom that tended to be found more frequently among the Ara h 8-sensitized subjects in the group negative for Ara h 1–3 compared with the subjects in the group positive for Ara h 1–3 although the difference did not reach the level of significance (p = 0.057). All these 13 Ara h 8-sensitized subjects also stated that they suffered from hazelnut allergy, an allergy that was associated with Ara h 8 (without Ara h 1–3) sensitization (75%, n = 20 versus 39%, n = 54, p < 0.01).

Of the 16 subjects sensitized to Ara h 9, 6 reported severe symptoms after peanut exposure. All of them belonged to the group positive for Ara h 1–3. Details about sensitizations and reported symptoms for individual patients are given in tables 1 and 2, and a summary is presented in figure 2.

There was no significant difference between the A1–A33 and B1–B41 patients included in the present study regarding any symptom parameter studied (data not shown).

 

goto top of outline Discussion

Allergen components have made it possible to study patients’ IgE reactivity profiles on a molecular level. The major peanut allergens Ara h 1, Ara h 2 and Ara h 3 are potentially dangerous proteins as they are highly resistant to heating (roasting) and gastrointestinal digestion [19,20,21,22,23]. Similarly, nonspecific lipid transfer proteins (e.g. Ara h 9 in peanut) are known to be very stable proteins [24]. That is quite contrary to PR-10 allergens, such as Ara h 8 in peanut, which are sensitive to heat and proteolytic enzymes [12,24]. Profilins (e.g. Ara h 5 in peanut) are relatively labile allergens as well [24].

In the present study, we show that 45–57% of mainly young adults with suspected peanut allergy had IgE antibodies to rAra h 1, rAra h 2 and rAra h 3. Most common was IgE to Ara h 2, to which 73–100% of allergic subjects usually are sensitized (depending on the study population and assay technique) [25,26,27,28]. The high prevalence of birch pollen sensitization in the patients living in western Sweden is consistent with the finding of a high prevalence of IgE reactivity to the birch pollen-related allergen Ara h 8 (70%). A minority was sensitized to Ara h 9, profilin and CCD. The relatively low prevalence of 22% for IgE reactivity to rAra h 9 is in line with a recently published study exhibiting a prevalence of 15% for Ara h 9 sensitization in peanut-allergic patients living outside the Mediterranean area [29]. Another peanut allergen not included in the present study is Ara h 6, a storage protein that shows substantial cross-reactivity with regard to IgE-binding capacity with Ara h 2 [23,30]. Studies have demonstrated that Ara h 6 is a major peanut allergen, indicating that it might be an added value to also include Ara h 6 in the diagnosis of peanut allergy [28,30,31].

The patients with IgE to any of rAra h 1, 2 or 3 (Ara h 1–3-positive group) showed significantly higher IgE levels to peanut extract (i.e. peanut ImmunoCAP) than the patients in the group negative for Ara h 1–3, and the majority of them had peanut-specific IgE levels above the suggested 95% predictive clinical decision point of 15 kUA/l for peanut allergy [18]. However, clinical decision points for specific IgE could be dependent on the geographical region and hence the sensitization pattern of the patient, and should not be used in a dichotomous way [32]. Furthermore, other clinical decision points for peanut allergy have been proposed [33,34].

High IgE levels to rAra h 8 were not associated with high peanut test results. This discrepancy has been explained by the finding that Ara h 8 is present in only low concentrations in peanut extract [12]. As a consequence this birch pollen-related allergen is present in suboptimal amounts in the peanut ImmunoCAP test and is not able to bind all Ara h 8-specific IgE antibodies.

Severe food reactions are difficult to predict. Interestingly, 23 (56%) of the 41 subjects in the present study belonging to the group positive for Ara h 1–3 reported severe reactions (i.e. respiratory distress) after ingestion of peanut or peanut-containing food, or after inhalation or skin exposure to peanut. Recent studies have shown that asthma-like respiratory distress is often involved in mortality due to food allergy [35]. Two cases of anaphylaxis with unconsciousness were also reported in the group positive for Ara h 1–3. In contrast, just 3 (18%) of the 17 subjects lacking detectable IgE to these allergens (group negative for Ara h 1–3) suffered from severe reactions when exposed to peanut. These results, together with newly published data, indicate that IgE antibodies to the major peanut allergens Ara h 1, Ara h 2 or Ara h 3 are associated with severe reactions after exposure to peanut in children and young adults [26]. Our study suggests that such association is valid regardless of high or low peanut extract-specific IgE levels (i.e. higher or lower than the clinical decision point of 15 kUA/l).

Interestingly, we found no association between severe symptoms to peanut and IgE reactivity to rAra h 9 in this Swedish study population. This is similar to a recently published study by Krause et al. [36] in which Ara h 9 was reported to be an important allergen in Italian peanut-allergic patients with a prevalence of IgE reactivity of 45%. In that study, most Ara h 9-sensitized patients had a history of mild or only moderate to severe symptoms. An even higher prevalence of 90% of Ara h 9 sensitization was recently reported by Lauer et al. [29] in Spanish patients. However, in that study neither the patients’ symptom history nor their IgE reactivity pattern to individual peanut allergens was reported. Nevertheless, particularly for patients living in Mediterranean countries, Ara h 9 should be included in the test profile [29,36,37].

A trend towards more reported symptoms of OAS to peanut was found in the small group of 13 patients with IgE reactivity to rAra h 8 and without concomitant Ara h 1, 2 or 3 sensitization. However, some of these patients also reported systemic symptoms such as urticaria and gastrointestinal symptoms, and 2 of them even reported severe symptoms. It should be noted that all 13 patients in this subgroup also reported allergy to hazelnut.

Half of the studied subjects reported reactions to peanut that had occurred within 5 years prior to blood sampling, but few patients had avoided all contact with peanut for 1 or 2 decades due to an allergic reaction in early childhood. Naturally, this leads to some caution when interpreting the data. One weakness of the present study, based on questionnaires only for the documentation of clinical reactivity, is the causal role of peanut as the offending food. To minimize this dilemma, the questionnaires were reviewed by an investigator before database entry. However, this still does not eliminate the possibility that the offending food in some cases could in fact have been something else than peanut, for example traces of hazelnut added to some food. Furthermore, the association between the severity of reported symptoms and the actual exposure dose cannot be investigated in the present study even if the exposure route was documented. The issue of accuracy of the severity assessment is also a major limitation of the study. It could be questioned whether the patients’ symptom descriptions are uniform and in agreement with a doctor’s diagnosis. Some subjects could have exaggerated or understated their symptom descriptions when answering the questionnaire, especially when a long time has passed since the occasion. However, it is unlikely that the accuracy in the symptom description would differ between the group positive for Ara h 1–3 and the negative group since the time elapsed between the reaction to peanut and blood sampling did not significantly differ between the two groups. Furthermore, some of the patients might have developed tolerance to peanut and their IgE reactivity profile might have changed since the last reaction. However, data from Flinterman et al. [28] indicate that the IgE reactivity profile to peanut components might be rather stable over time.

Several studies have pointed to the usefulness of allergen components in the diagnosis of peanut allergy [26,27,31,38]. Furthermore, short peanut peptides covering the most immunodominant linear IgE epitopes of Ara h 1, Ara h 2 and Ara h 3 might be an alternative to allergen components in in vitro testing [39,40]. Interestingly, patients with more severe peanut allergy display a higher diversity in IgE reactivity as reflected by the number of epitopes recognized [39,41]. Similarly, it has been shown that the risk of severe reactions to peanut increases with the number of peanut storage proteins recognized by the patient’s IgE while in most cases IgE only to Ara h 8 is associated with mild symptoms [26,27,31]. Our study is in line with these findings. However, double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge remains the gold standard in the diagnosis of peanut allergy, and further work using physician-supervised oral food challenges is warranted to confirm the link between IgE to Ara h 1, 2, or 3 and the severity of reactions.

We conclude that IgE antibodies to rAra h 8 are connected with birch pollen sensitization and seem to be associated with a low risk of severe reactions to peanut in Swedish peanut-allergic patients (represented by mostly young adults with a suspected peanut allergy in our study). On the other hand, IgE to rAra h 1, rAra h 2 and rAra h 3 is associated with high IgE levels to peanut, and in the present study IgE reactivity to any of them was associated with a history of severe reactions to peanut.

 

goto top of outline Acknowledgements

This study was supported by grants No. 20055039 and 2006069 from the Swedish Asthma and Allergy Association’s Research Foundation.


 goto top of outline References
  1. Sampson HA, Mendelson L, Rosen JP: Fatal and near-fatal anaphylactic reactions to food in children and adolescents. N Engl J Med 1992;327:380–384.
  2. Bock SA, Munoz-Furlong A, Sampson HA: Further fatalities caused by anaphylactic reactions to food, 2001–2006. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2007;119:1016–1018.
  3. Moneret-Vautrin DA, Morisset M, Flabbee J, Beaudouin E, Kanny G: Epidemiology of life-threatening and lethal anaphylaxis: a review. Allergy 2005;60:443–451.
  4. Pumphrey RS, Gowland MH: Further fatal allergic reactions to food in the United Kingdom, 1999–2006. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2007;119:1018–1019.
  5. Wood RA: The natural history of food allergy. Pediatrics 2003;111:1631–1637.
  6. Sicherer SH, Munoz-Furlong A, Burks AW, Sampson HA: Prevalence of peanut and tree nut allergy in the US determined by a random digit dial telephone survey. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1999;103:559–562.
  7. Hourihane JO, Aiken R, Briggs R, Gudgeon LA, Grimshaw KE, Dunngalvin A, Roberts SR: The impact of government advice to pregnant mothers regarding peanut avoidance on the prevalence of peanut allergy in United Kingdom children at school entry. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2007;119:1197–1202.
  8. Ostblom E, Lilja G, Ahlstedt S, van Hage M, Wickman M: Patterns of quantitative food-specific IgE-antibodies and reported food hypersensitivity in 4-year-old children. Allergy 2008;63:418–424.
  9. Wainstein BK, Yee A, Jelley D, Ziegler M, Ziegler JB: Combining skin prick, immediate skin application and specific-IgE testing in the diagnosis of peanut allergy in children. Pediatr Allergy Immunol 2007;18:231–239.
  10. Vieths S, Scheurer S, Ballmer-Weber B: Current understanding of cross-reactivity of food allergens and pollen. Ann NY Acad Sci 2002;964:47–68.
  11. Kleber-Janke T, Crameri R, Appenzeller U, Schlaak M, Becker WM: Selective cloning of peanut allergens, including profilin and 2S albumins, by phage display technology. Int Arch Allergy Immunol 1999;119:265–274.
  12. Mittag D, Akkerdaas J, Ballmer-Weber BK, Vogel L, Wensing M, Becker WM, Koppelman SJ, Knulst AC, Helbling A, Hefle SL, van Ree R, Vieths S: Ara h 8, a Bet v 1-homologous allergen from peanut, is a major allergen in patients with combined birch pollen and peanut allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2004;114:1410–1417.
  13. Guilloux L, Morisset M, Codreanu F, Parisot L, Moneret-Vautrin DA: Peanut allergy diagnosis in the context of grass pollen sensitization for 125 patients: roles of peanut and cross-reactive carbohydrate determinants specific IgE. Int Arch Allergy Immunol 2009;149:91–97.
  14. Burks W, Sampson HA, Bannon GA: Peanut allergens. Allergy 1998;53:725–730.
  15. Chassaigne H, Tregoat V, Norgaard JV, Maleki SJ, van Hengel AJ: Resolution and identification of major peanut allergens using a combination of fluorescence two-dimensional differential gel electrophoresis, Western blotting and Q-TOF mass spectrometry. J Proteomics 2009;72:511–526.
  16. Bernard H, Paty E, Mondoulet L, Burks AW, Bannon GA, Wal JM, Scheinmann P: Serological characteristics of peanut allergy in children. Allergy 2003;58:1285–1292.
  17. van Odijk J, Bengtsson U, Borres MP, Hulthen L, Ahlstedt S: Specific immunoglobulin E antibodies to peanut over time in relation to peanut intake, symptoms and age. Pediatr Allergy Immunol 2004;15:442–448.
  18. Sampson HA: Utility of food-specific IgE concentrations in predicting symptomatic food allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2001;107:891–896.
  19. Beyer K, Morrow E, Li XM, Bardina L, Bannon GA, Burks AW, Sampson HA: Effects of cooking methods on peanut allergenicity. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2001;107:1077–1081.
  20. Maleki SJ, Kopper RA, Shin DS, Park CW, Compadre CM, Sampson H, Burks AW, Bannon GA: Structure of the major peanut allergen Ara h 1 may protect IgE-binding epitopes from degradation. J Immunol 2000;164:5844–5849.
  21. Maleki SJ, Viquez O, Jacks T, Dodo H, Champagne ET, Chung SY, Landry SJ: The major peanut allergen, Ara h 2, functions as a trypsin inhibitor, and roasting enhances this function. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2003;112:190–195.
  22. Rouge P, Culerrier R, Sabatier V, Granier C, Rance F, Barre A: Mapping and conformational analysis of IgE-binding epitopic regions on the molecular surface of the major Ara h 3 legumin allergen of peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Mol Immunol 2009;46:1067–1075.
  23. Lehmann K, Schweimer K, Reese G, Randow S, Suhr M, Becker WM, Vieths S, Rosch P: Structure and stability of 2S albumin type peanut allergens: implications for the severity of peanut allergic reactions. Biochem J 2006;395:463–472.
  24. Scheurer S, Lauer I, Foetisch K, San Miguel MM, Retzek M, Hartz C, Enrique E, Lidholm J, Cistero-Bahima A, Vieths S: Strong allergenicity of Pru av 3, the lipid transfer protein from cherry, is related to high stability against thermal processing and digestion. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2004;114:900–907.
  25. Koppelman SJ, Wensing M, Ertmann M, Knulst AC, Knol EF: Relevance of Ara h1, Ara h2 and Ara h3 in peanut-allergic patients, as determined by immunoglobulin E Western blotting, basophil-histamine release and intracutaneous testing: Ara h2 is the most important peanut allergen. Clin Exp Allergy 2004;34:583–590.
  26. Asarnoj A, Moverare R, Ostblom E, Poorafshar M, Lilja G, Hedlin G, van Hage M, Ahlstedt S, Wickman M: IgE to peanut allergen components: relation to peanut symptoms and pollen sensitization in 8-year-olds. Allergy 2010;65:1189–1195.
  27. Astier C, Morisset M, Roitel O, Codreanu F, Jacquenet S, Franck P, Ogier V, Petit N, Proust B, Moneret-Vautrin DA, Burks AW, Bihain B, Sampson HA, Kanny G: Predictive value of skin prick tests using recombinant allergens for diagnosis of peanut allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2006;118:250–256.
  28. Flinterman AE, van Hoffen E, den Hartog Jager CF, Koppelman S, Pasmans SG, Hoekstra MO, Bruijnzeel-Koomen CA, Knulst AC, Knol EF: Children with peanut allergy recognize predominantly Ara h2 and Ara h6, which remains stable over time. Clin Exp Allergy 2007;37:1221–1228.
  29. Lauer I, Dueringer N, Pokoj S, Rehm S, Zoccatelli G, Reese G, Miguel-Moncin MS, Cistero-Bahima A, Enrique E, Lidholm J, Vieths S, Scheurer S: The non-specific lipid transfer protein, Ara h 9, is an important allergen in peanut. Clin Exp Allergy 2009;39:1427–1437.
  30. Koppelman SJ, de Jong GA, Laaper-Ertmann M, Peeters KA, Knulst AC, Hefle SL, Knol EF: Purification and immunoglobulin E-binding properties of peanut allergen Ara h 6: evidence for cross-reactivity with Ara h 2. Clin Exp Allergy 2005;35:490–497.
  31. Peeters KA, Koppelman SJ, van Hoffen E, van der Tas CW, den Hartog Jager CF, Penninks AH, Hefle SL, Bruijnzeel-Koomen CA, Knol EF, Knulst AC: Does skin prick test reactivity to purified allergens correlate with clinical severity of peanut allergy? Clin Exp Allergy 2007;37:108–115.
  32. Soderstrom L, Kober A, Ahlstedt S, de Groot H, Lange CE, Paganelli R, Roovers MH, Sastre J: A further evaluation of the clinical use of specific IgE antibody testing in allergic diseases. Allergy 2003;58:921–928.
  33. Maloney JM, Rudengren M, Ahlstedt S, Bock SA, Sampson HA: The use of serum-specific IgE measurements for the diagnosis of peanut, tree nut, and seed allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2008;122:145–151.
  34. van Nieuwaal NH, Lasfar W, Meijer Y, Kentie PA, Flinterman AE, Pasmans SG, Knulst AC, Hoekstra MO: Utility of peanut-specific IgE levels in predicting the outcome of double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2010.
  35. Simons FE, Sampson HA: Anaphylaxis epidemic: fact or fiction? J Allergy Clin Immunol 2008;122:1166–1168.
  36. Krause S, Reese G, Randow S, Zennaro D, Quaratino D, Palazzo P, Ciardiello MA, Petersen A, Becker WM, Mari A: Lipid transfer protein (Ara h 9) as a new peanut allergen relevant for a Mediterranean allergic population. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2009;124:771–778.
  37. Asero R, Mistrello G, Roncarolo D, Amato S, Caldironi G, Barocci F, van Ree R: Immunological cross-reactivity between lipid transfer proteins from botanically unrelated plant-derived foods: a clinical study. Allergy 2002;57:900–906.
  38. Nicolaou N, Poorafshar M, Murray C, Simpson A, Winell H, Kerry G, Harlin A, Woodcock A, Ahlstedt S, Custovic A: Allergy or tolerance in children sensitized to peanut: prevalence and differentiation using component-resolved diagnostics. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2010;125:191–197.
  39. Shreffler WG, Beyer K, Chu TH, Burks AW, Sampson HA: Microarray immunoassay: association of clinical history, in vitro IgE function, and heterogeneity of allergenic peanut epitopes. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2004;113:776–782.
  40. Beyer K, Ellman-Grunther L, Jarvinen KM, Wood RA, Hourihane J, Sampson HA: Measurement of peptide-specific IgE as an additional tool in identifying patients with clinical reactivity to peanuts. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2003;112:202–207.
  41. Flinterman AE, Knol EF, Lencer DA, Bardina L, den Hartog Jager CF, Lin J, Pasmans SG, Bruijnzeel-Koomen CA, Sampson HA, van Hoffen E, Shreffler WG: Peanut epitopes for IgE and IgG4 in peanut-sensitized children in relation to severity of peanut allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2008;121:737–743.

 goto top of outline Author Contacts

Correspondence to: Dr. Robert Movérare
Phadia AB
PO Box 6460
SE–751 37 Uppsala (Sweden)
Tel. +46 18 16 50 00, E-Mail robert.moverare@phadia.com


 goto top of outline Article Information

Received: May 4, 2010
Accepted after revision: December 22, 2010
Published online: June 29, 2011
Number of Print Pages : 9
Number of Figures : 2, Number of Tables : 3, Number of References : 41


 goto top of outline Publication Details

International Archives of Allergy and Immunology

Vol. 156, No. 3, Year 2011 (Cover Date: October 2011)

Journal Editor: Valenta R. (Vienna)
ISSN: 1018-2438 (Print), eISSN: 1423-0097 (Online)

For additional information: http://www.karger.com/IAA


Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or, in the case of photocopying, direct payment of a specified fee to the Copyright Clearance Center.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in goverment regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

Abstract

Background: Peanut may cause severe reactions in allergic individuals. The objective was to evaluate IgE antibodies to various recombinant (r) peanut and birch pollen allergens in relation to IgE levels to whole peanut extract and severe allergic reactions to peanut. Methods: Seventy-four Swedish peanut-allergic patients (age: 14–61 years) reported previous peanut exposure and associated symptoms using a questionnaire. Their IgE reactivity to peanut, birch pollen and individual allergen components was analyzed using ImmunoCAP®. Results: Of the 48 subjects sensitized to Ara h 1, 2 or 3, 60% had peanut-specific IgE levels >15 kUA/l, while 100% of the subjects without detectable IgE to these allergens had low peanut-specific IgE levels (<10 kUA/l). The levels of IgE to rAra h 8, rBet v 1 and birch pollen were highly correlated (rS = 0.94, p < 0.0001). Fifty-eight patients reported adverse reactions after accidental or deliberate peanut exposure (oral, inhalation or skin) of whom 41 had IgE to rAra h 1, 2 or 3. Symptoms of respiratory distress were associated with sensitization to Ara h 1, 2 or 3 (56 vs. 18%, p < 0.01). Two cases of anaphylaxis were reported among the individuals sensitized to Ara h 1–3. IgE to rAra h 8, rAra h 9, profilin or cross-reactive carbohydrate determinants were not associated with severe symptoms. Conclusions: The results indicate that IgE reactivity to Ara h 1, 2 and 3 is associated with severe reactions after exposure to peanut in Swedish patients.



 goto top of outline Author Contacts

Correspondence to: Dr. Robert Movérare
Phadia AB
PO Box 6460
SE–751 37 Uppsala (Sweden)
Tel. +46 18 16 50 00, E-Mail robert.moverare@phadia.com


 goto top of outline Article Information

Received: May 4, 2010
Accepted after revision: December 22, 2010
Published online: June 29, 2011
Number of Print Pages : 9
Number of Figures : 2, Number of Tables : 3, Number of References : 41


 goto top of outline Publication Details

International Archives of Allergy and Immunology

Vol. 156, No. 3, Year 2011 (Cover Date: October 2011)

Journal Editor: Valenta R. (Vienna)
ISSN: 1018-2438 (Print), eISSN: 1423-0097 (Online)

For additional information: http://www.karger.com/IAA


Copyright / Drug Dosage

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or, in the case of photocopying, direct payment of a specified fee to the Copyright Clearance Center.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in goverment regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

References

  1. Sampson HA, Mendelson L, Rosen JP: Fatal and near-fatal anaphylactic reactions to food in children and adolescents. N Engl J Med 1992;327:380–384.
  2. Bock SA, Munoz-Furlong A, Sampson HA: Further fatalities caused by anaphylactic reactions to food, 2001–2006. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2007;119:1016–1018.
  3. Moneret-Vautrin DA, Morisset M, Flabbee J, Beaudouin E, Kanny G: Epidemiology of life-threatening and lethal anaphylaxis: a review. Allergy 2005;60:443–451.
  4. Pumphrey RS, Gowland MH: Further fatal allergic reactions to food in the United Kingdom, 1999–2006. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2007;119:1018–1019.
  5. Wood RA: The natural history of food allergy. Pediatrics 2003;111:1631–1637.
  6. Sicherer SH, Munoz-Furlong A, Burks AW, Sampson HA: Prevalence of peanut and tree nut allergy in the US determined by a random digit dial telephone survey. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1999;103:559–562.
  7. Hourihane JO, Aiken R, Briggs R, Gudgeon LA, Grimshaw KE, Dunngalvin A, Roberts SR: The impact of government advice to pregnant mothers regarding peanut avoidance on the prevalence of peanut allergy in United Kingdom children at school entry. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2007;119:1197–1202.
  8. Ostblom E, Lilja G, Ahlstedt S, van Hage M, Wickman M: Patterns of quantitative food-specific IgE-antibodies and reported food hypersensitivity in 4-year-old children. Allergy 2008;63:418–424.
  9. Wainstein BK, Yee A, Jelley D, Ziegler M, Ziegler JB: Combining skin prick, immediate skin application and specific-IgE testing in the diagnosis of peanut allergy in children. Pediatr Allergy Immunol 2007;18:231–239.
  10. Vieths S, Scheurer S, Ballmer-Weber B: Current understanding of cross-reactivity of food allergens and pollen. Ann NY Acad Sci 2002;964:47–68.
  11. Kleber-Janke T, Crameri R, Appenzeller U, Schlaak M, Becker WM: Selective cloning of peanut allergens, including profilin and 2S albumins, by phage display technology. Int Arch Allergy Immunol 1999;119:265–274.
  12. Mittag D, Akkerdaas J, Ballmer-Weber BK, Vogel L, Wensing M, Becker WM, Koppelman SJ, Knulst AC, Helbling A, Hefle SL, van Ree R, Vieths S: Ara h 8, a Bet v 1-homologous allergen from peanut, is a major allergen in patients with combined birch pollen and peanut allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2004;114:1410–1417.
  13. Guilloux L, Morisset M, Codreanu F, Parisot L, Moneret-Vautrin DA: Peanut allergy diagnosis in the context of grass pollen sensitization for 125 patients: roles of peanut and cross-reactive carbohydrate determinants specific IgE. Int Arch Allergy Immunol 2009;149:91–97.
  14. Burks W, Sampson HA, Bannon GA: Peanut allergens. Allergy 1998;53:725–730.
  15. Chassaigne H, Tregoat V, Norgaard JV, Maleki SJ, van Hengel AJ: Resolution and identification of major peanut allergens using a combination of fluorescence two-dimensional differential gel electrophoresis, Western blotting and Q-TOF mass spectrometry. J Proteomics 2009;72:511–526.
  16. Bernard H, Paty E, Mondoulet L, Burks AW, Bannon GA, Wal JM, Scheinmann P: Serological characteristics of peanut allergy in children. Allergy 2003;58:1285–1292.
  17. van Odijk J, Bengtsson U, Borres MP, Hulthen L, Ahlstedt S: Specific immunoglobulin E antibodies to peanut over time in relation to peanut intake, symptoms and age. Pediatr Allergy Immunol 2004;15:442–448.
  18. Sampson HA: Utility of food-specific IgE concentrations in predicting symptomatic food allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2001;107:891–896.
  19. Beyer K, Morrow E, Li XM, Bardina L, Bannon GA, Burks AW, Sampson HA: Effects of cooking methods on peanut allergenicity. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2001;107:1077–1081.
  20. Maleki SJ, Kopper RA, Shin DS, Park CW, Compadre CM, Sampson H, Burks AW, Bannon GA: Structure of the major peanut allergen Ara h 1 may protect IgE-binding epitopes from degradation. J Immunol 2000;164:5844–5849.
  21. Maleki SJ, Viquez O, Jacks T, Dodo H, Champagne ET, Chung SY, Landry SJ: The major peanut allergen, Ara h 2, functions as a trypsin inhibitor, and roasting enhances this function. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2003;112:190–195.
  22. Rouge P, Culerrier R, Sabatier V, Granier C, Rance F, Barre A: Mapping and conformational analysis of IgE-binding epitopic regions on the molecular surface of the major Ara h 3 legumin allergen of peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Mol Immunol 2009;46:1067–1075.
  23. Lehmann K, Schweimer K, Reese G, Randow S, Suhr M, Becker WM, Vieths S, Rosch P: Structure and stability of 2S albumin type peanut allergens: implications for the severity of peanut allergic reactions. Biochem J 2006;395:463–472.
  24. Scheurer S, Lauer I, Foetisch K, San Miguel MM, Retzek M, Hartz C, Enrique E, Lidholm J, Cistero-Bahima A, Vieths S: Strong allergenicity of Pru av 3, the lipid transfer protein from cherry, is related to high stability against thermal processing and digestion. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2004;114:900–907.
  25. Koppelman SJ, Wensing M, Ertmann M, Knulst AC, Knol EF: Relevance of Ara h1, Ara h2 and Ara h3 in peanut-allergic patients, as determined by immunoglobulin E Western blotting, basophil-histamine release and intracutaneous testing: Ara h2 is the most important peanut allergen. Clin Exp Allergy 2004;34:583–590.
  26. Asarnoj A, Moverare R, Ostblom E, Poorafshar M, Lilja G, Hedlin G, van Hage M, Ahlstedt S, Wickman M: IgE to peanut allergen components: relation to peanut symptoms and pollen sensitization in 8-year-olds. Allergy 2010;65:1189–1195.
  27. Astier C, Morisset M, Roitel O, Codreanu F, Jacquenet S, Franck P, Ogier V, Petit N, Proust B, Moneret-Vautrin DA, Burks AW, Bihain B, Sampson HA, Kanny G: Predictive value of skin prick tests using recombinant allergens for diagnosis of peanut allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2006;118:250–256.
  28. Flinterman AE, van Hoffen E, den Hartog Jager CF, Koppelman S, Pasmans SG, Hoekstra MO, Bruijnzeel-Koomen CA, Knulst AC, Knol EF: Children with peanut allergy recognize predominantly Ara h2 and Ara h6, which remains stable over time. Clin Exp Allergy 2007;37:1221–1228.
  29. Lauer I, Dueringer N, Pokoj S, Rehm S, Zoccatelli G, Reese G, Miguel-Moncin MS, Cistero-Bahima A, Enrique E, Lidholm J, Vieths S, Scheurer S: The non-specific lipid transfer protein, Ara h 9, is an important allergen in peanut. Clin Exp Allergy 2009;39:1427–1437.
  30. Koppelman SJ, de Jong GA, Laaper-Ertmann M, Peeters KA, Knulst AC, Hefle SL, Knol EF: Purification and immunoglobulin E-binding properties of peanut allergen Ara h 6: evidence for cross-reactivity with Ara h 2. Clin Exp Allergy 2005;35:490–497.
  31. Peeters KA, Koppelman SJ, van Hoffen E, van der Tas CW, den Hartog Jager CF, Penninks AH, Hefle SL, Bruijnzeel-Koomen CA, Knol EF, Knulst AC: Does skin prick test reactivity to purified allergens correlate with clinical severity of peanut allergy? Clin Exp Allergy 2007;37:108–115.
  32. Soderstrom L, Kober A, Ahlstedt S, de Groot H, Lange CE, Paganelli R, Roovers MH, Sastre J: A further evaluation of the clinical use of specific IgE antibody testing in allergic diseases. Allergy 2003;58:921–928.
  33. Maloney JM, Rudengren M, Ahlstedt S, Bock SA, Sampson HA: The use of serum-specific IgE measurements for the diagnosis of peanut, tree nut, and seed allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2008;122:145–151.
  34. van Nieuwaal NH, Lasfar W, Meijer Y, Kentie PA, Flinterman AE, Pasmans SG, Knulst AC, Hoekstra MO: Utility of peanut-specific IgE levels in predicting the outcome of double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2010.
  35. Simons FE, Sampson HA: Anaphylaxis epidemic: fact or fiction? J Allergy Clin Immunol 2008;122:1166–1168.
  36. Krause S, Reese G, Randow S, Zennaro D, Quaratino D, Palazzo P, Ciardiello MA, Petersen A, Becker WM, Mari A: Lipid transfer protein (Ara h 9) as a new peanut allergen relevant for a Mediterranean allergic population. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2009;124:771–778.
  37. Asero R, Mistrello G, Roncarolo D, Amato S, Caldironi G, Barocci F, van Ree R: Immunological cross-reactivity between lipid transfer proteins from botanically unrelated plant-derived foods: a clinical study. Allergy 2002;57:900–906.
  38. Nicolaou N, Poorafshar M, Murray C, Simpson A, Winell H, Kerry G, Harlin A, Woodcock A, Ahlstedt S, Custovic A: Allergy or tolerance in children sensitized to peanut: prevalence and differentiation using component-resolved diagnostics. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2010;125:191–197.
  39. Shreffler WG, Beyer K, Chu TH, Burks AW, Sampson HA: Microarray immunoassay: association of clinical history, in vitro IgE function, and heterogeneity of allergenic peanut epitopes. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2004;113:776–782.
  40. Beyer K, Ellman-Grunther L, Jarvinen KM, Wood RA, Hourihane J, Sampson HA: Measurement of peptide-specific IgE as an additional tool in identifying patients with clinical reactivity to peanuts. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2003;112:202–207.
  41. Flinterman AE, Knol EF, Lencer DA, Bardina L, den Hartog Jager CF, Lin J, Pasmans SG, Bruijnzeel-Koomen CA, Sampson HA, van Hoffen E, Shreffler WG: Peanut epitopes for IgE and IgG4 in peanut-sensitized children in relation to severity of peanut allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2008;121:737–743.