Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21423762›Full record

ArticlePloS one2011

Reduction of cross-reactive carbohydrate determinants in plant foodstuff: elucidation of clinical relevance and implications for allergy diagnosis.

Heidi Kaulfürst-Soboll, Melanie Mertens, Randolf Brehler, Antje von Schaewen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. ComplexFrontiers in plant science · 2021
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Allergens of Blomia tropicalis: An Overview of Recombinant Molecules.International archives of allergy and immunology · 2017
    Review
  8. Carbohydrates as food allergens.Asia Pacific allergy · 2015
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Heidi Kaulfürst-SobollInstitute of Plant Biology and Biotechnology, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.
Melanie Mertens
Randolf Brehler
Antje von Schaewen
FH Münster · DEUniversity of Münster · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA longstanding debate in allergy is whether or not specific immunoglobulin-E antibodies (sIgE), recognizing cross-reactive carbohydrate determinants (CCD), are able to elicit clinical symptoms. In pollen and food allergy, ≥20% of patients display in-vitro CCD reactivity based on presence of α1,3-fucose and/or β1,2-xylose residues on N-glycans of plant (xylose/fucose) and insect (fucose) glycoproteins. Because the allergenicity of tomato glycoallergen Lyc e 2 was ascribed to N-glycan chains alone, this study aimed at evaluating clinical relevance of CCD-reduced foodstuff in patients with carbohydrate-specific IgE (CCD-sIgE). METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

findingsTomato and/or potato plants with stable reduction of Lyc e 2 (tomato) or CCD formation in general were obtained via RNA interference, and gene-silencing was confirmed by immunoblot analyses. Two different CCD-positive patient groups were compared: one with tomato and/or potato food allergy and another with hymenoptera-venom allergy (the latter to distinguish between CCD- and peptide-specific reactions in the food-allergic group). Non-allergic and CCD-negative food-allergic patients served as controls for immunoblot, basophil activation, and ImmunoCAP analyses. Basophil activation tests (BAT) revealed that Lyc e 2 is no key player among other tomato (glyco)allergens. CCD-positive patients showed decreased (re)activity with CCD-reduced foodstuff, most obvious in the hymenoptera venom-allergic but less in the food-allergic group, suggesting that in-vivo reactivity is primarily based on peptide- and not CCD-sIgE. Peptide epitopes remained unaffected in CCD-reduced plants, because CCD-negative patient sera showed reactivity similar to wild-type. In-house-made ImmunoCAPs, applied to investigate feasibility in routine diagnosis, confirmed BAT results at the sIgE level. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: CCD-positive hymenoptera venom-allergic patients (control group) showed basophil activation despite no allergic symptoms towards tomato and potato. Therefore, this proof-of-principle study demonstrates feasibility of CCD-reduced foodstuff to minimize 'false-positive results' in routine serum tests. Despite confirming low clinical relevance of CCD antibodies, we identified one patient with ambiguous in-vitro results, indicating need for further component-resolved diagnosis.

Indexed as

AllergensBasophilsCarbohydratesCross ReactionsEpitopesFood HypersensitivityFruitGene SilencingHumansImmunoglobulin EImmunoglobulin GN-AcetylglucosaminyltransferasesPlant ExtractsPlant ProteinsReproducibility of ResultsSolanum lycopersicumAllergensCarbohydratesEpitopesImmunoglobulin EImmunoglobulin GN-AcetylglucosaminyltransferasesPlant ExtractsPlant Proteins

Identifiers

PMID21423762
PMCPMC3056789
OpenAlexW2062419736

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.