Allergic Sensitization to Native and Heated Celery Root in Pollen-Sensitive Patients Investigated by Skin Test and IgE BindingJankiewicz A.a · Aulepp H.b · Baltes W.a · Bögl K.W.c · Dehne L.I.c · Zuberbier T.d · Vieths S.e
aInstitute of Food Chemistry, Technische Universität Berlin, and bDepartment of Dermatology and Allergology, Borkum Riff Hospital, Borkum, and cFederal Institute for Health Protection of Consumers and Veterinary Medicine, Berlin, and dDepartment of Dermatology, Virchow-Klinikum, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and eDepartment of Allergology, Paul Ehrlich Institute, Langen, Germany
Do you have an account?
- Rent for 48h to view
- Buy Cloud Access for unlimited viewing via different devices
- Synchronizing in the ReadCube Cloud
- Printing and saving restrictions apply
Rental: USD 8.50
Cloud: USD 20.00
Article / Publication Details
The rates of sensitization and allergy to four birch pollen related plant foods were investigated in a group of 167 patients who were sensitive to at least one kind of pollen and one particular food. Sensitivity was concluded from a positive skin prick test or the determination of specific IgE, whereas allergy was based on anamnestic data. The positivity rates for sensitization and allergy, respectively, were: apple, 93 and 84%; hazelnut, 90 and 78%; celery, 70 and 14%; carrot, 60 and 37%. Comparative testing by skin prick test and enzyme allergosorbent test (EAST) with extract from native and microwaved (750 W, 30 min, 100oC) celery root was performed on 46 of these patients. At least one positive test result (either prick test or EAST) was obtained for native celery in 36/46 (78%) and for heated celery in 20/46 (43%) of these patients. Although the concordance between the EAST and the skin test was very low, extended control experiments of both test procedures revealed no evidence for nonspecificity. Immunoblot analyses of extract from native celery and sera of 60 patients with a positive EAST (class ≥ 2, ≥ 0.7 U/ml) for celery resulted in the following rates of IgE binding to known cross-reactive celery allergens: Api g 1:33%, celery profilin: 17%; multiple bands most probably due to carbohydrate epitopes: 32%. The rate of binding to other allergens was below 10%. Since these three important structures are also present in birch pollen, no allergen could be identified as a candidate to mediate an exclusive celery/mugwort association. Investigation of extract from native and heated celery by immunoblotting pointed to a high lability of Api g 1, whereas profilin and carbohydrate epitopes appeared to be more resistant to heat. It has been concluded that sensitization to celery in German patients is without clinical significance in the majority of cases, in contrast to other birch-pollen-related plant foods such as apple and hazelnut. For the particular kind of extract used, neither the EAST nor the skin test alone represents an appropriate diagnostic method for testing sensitization to celery.
© 1996 S. Karger AG, Basel
Article / Publication Details
Copyright / Drug Dosage / DisclaimerCopyright: 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.
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 government 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.