Comprehending the allergen repertoire of shrimp for precision molecular diagnosis of shrimp allergy. Issue 10 (27th May 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Wai, Christine Y. Y.; Leung, Nicki Y. H.; Leung, Agnes S. Y.; Ngai, Sai Ming; Pacharn, Punchama; Yau, Yat Sun; Rosa Duque, Jaime Sou Da; Kwan, Mike Y. W.; Jirapongsananuruk, Orathai; Chan, Wai Hung; Chua, Gilbert T.; Lee, Qun Ui; Piboonpocanun, Surapon; Ho, Po Ki; Wong, Joshua S. C.; Li, Shanshan; Xu, Kary J. Y.; Wong, Gary W. K.; Chu, Ka Hou; Leung, Patrick S. C.; Vichyanond, Pakit; Leung, Ting Fan
• Is Part Of: Allergy. Volume 77:Issue 10(2022)
• Page Start: 3041
• Page End: 3051
• Publication Date: 2022-05-27
• Subjects: allergen profiling -- component‐resolved diagnosis -- DBPCFC -- shellfish allergy -- tropomyosin; Allergy -- Periodicals; 616.97
• DOI: 10.1111/all.15370
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0105-4538

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Clinical management of shrimp allergy is hampered by the lack of accurate tests. Molecular diagnosis has been shown to more accurately reflect the clinical reactivity but the full spectrum of shrimp allergens and their clinical relevance are yet to be established. We therefore sought to comprehend the allergen repertoire of shrimp, investigate and compare the sensitization pattern and diagnostic value of the allergens in allergic subjects of two distinct populations. Methods: Sera were collected from 85 subjects with challenge‐proven or doctor‐diagnosed shrimp allergy in Hong Kong and Thailand. The IgE‐binding proteins of Penaeus monodon were probed by Western blotting and identified by mass spectrometry. Recombinant shrimp allergens were synthesized and analyzed for IgE sensitization by ELISA. Results: Ten IgE‐binding proteins were identified, and a comprehensive panel of 11 recombinant shrimp allergens was generated. The major shrimp allergens among Hong Kong subjects were troponin C (Pen m 6) and glycogen phosphorylase (Pen m 14, 47.1%), tropomyosin (Pen m 1, 41.2%) and sarcoplasmic‐calcium binding protein (Pen m 4, 35.3%), while those among Thai subjects were Pen m 1 (68.8%), Pen m 6 (50.0%) and fatty acid‐binding protein (Pen m 13, 37.5%). Component‐based tests yielded significantly higher area under curve values (0.77–0.96) than shrimp extract‐IgE test (0.70–0.75). Yet the best component test differed between populations; Pen m 1‐IgE test added diagnostic value only in the Thai cohort, whereas sensitizations to other components were better predictors of shrimp allergy in Hong Kong patients. Conclusion: Pen m 14 was identified as a novel shrimp allergen predictive of challenge outcome. Molecular diagnosis better predicts shrimp allergy than conventional tests, but the relevant component is population dependent. Abstract : Glycogen phosphorylase (GP, Pen m 14) is identified as a new shrimp allergen. Troponin C (Pen m 6), fatty acid‐binding protein (Pen m 13) and Pen m 14 are major allergens apart from tropomyosin (Pen m 1) in shrimp allergic subjects from Hong Kong and Thailand. Molecular diagnostics better predicts shrimp allergy but relevant biomarker is population dependent.Abbreviations: AUC, area under curve; ELISA, enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay; FABP, fatty acid‐binding protein; GP, glycogen phosphorylase; PSA, probably shrimp allergy; SPT, skin prick test; SDS‐PAGE, sodium dodecyl‐sulfate polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis; TM, tropomyosin; TnC, troponin C