J ALLERGY CLIN IMMUNOL

FEBRUARY 2012

AB232 Abstracts

TUESDAY

873 Goji Berries, a Novel Potent Allergenic Source with HighCross-Reactivity with Other Fruits

M. A. Lopez-Matas1, J. Carnes1, C. H. de Larramendi2, A. Ferrer3, A. J.

Huertas4, J. A. Pagan5, L. A. Navarro6, J. L. Garcia-Abujeta2, M. Pena3, S.

Vicario2; 1Laboratorios LETI, S.L., Tres Cantos (Madrid), SPAIN, 2Hos-

pital Marina Baixa, Villajoyosa (Alicante), SPAIN, 3Hospital Vega Baja,

Orihuela (Alicante), SPAIN, 4Hospital Santa Mara del Rosell, Cartagena

(Murcia), SPAIN, 5Hospital Virgen de la Arrixaca, Murcia, SPAIN, 6Cen-

tro de especialidades El Espaoleto, Jativa (Valencia), SPAIN.

RATIONALE: Goji berry (GB) is a Solanaceae fruit recently introduced

in the Western countries diet. The objectives of the study were to analyze

their allergen capacity and the cross-reactivity with other fruits.

METHODS: 566 individuals were recruited in five different hospitals

from the Mediterranean coast of Spain. They were skin prick tested (SPT)

with a GB extract. The protein profile was analyzed by SDS-PAGE and 2D

electrophoresis. Specific IgE to GB, peach, tomato peel and a mix of nuts

was measured in SPT positive individuals. Allergenic profile and cross-

reactivity were performed by immunoblot.

RESULTS: Only 85 subjects (15%) had tried GB. Thirty-three individuals

(5.8%) had positive SPT to the GB extract (9,4% of those having tried

them). Most positive individuals were sensitized to aeroallergens and/or

food. Proteins in a MWof 7 to 100 kDawere visualized by SDS-PAGE and

2D electrophoresis. Sera was obtained from 24 SPT positive individuals,

13 of them (54.2%) had positive specific IgE to GB. Among them, 12 were

positive to peach (92.3%), 8 to tomato (61.5%) and 9 to nuts (69.2%). In

immunoblot, 7 individuals recognized 8 bands, specially one of 7 kDa (6

patients, 86%). Tomato, tobacco, nuts and Artemisia pollen inhibited al-

most completely the Goji berry extract. The 7 kDa band was inhibited

by purified Lyc e 3 and Pru p 3.

CONCLUSIONS: Goji berries have a strong allergenic potential and high

cross-reactivity with tomato, tobacco, nuts and Artemisia. LTP is an impor-

tant allergen implicated in the cross-reactivity with other allergens.

874 State Health Departments' Misinformation on ShellfishAllergy and use of KI in the Aftermath of Fukushima

S. Teuber; University of California, Davis, Davis, CA.

RATIONALE: In thewake of the nuclear disaster in Japan inMarch 2011,

the California Department of Public Health disseminated information that

use of KI was not indicated and could cause significant side effects in

people with allergies to iodine or shellfish. The Department was given the

AAAAI Practice Paper on "Risk of severe allergic reactions from the use of

potassium iodide for radiation emergencies" (Sicherer SH, JACI

2004;114:1395-7), and information was corrected on the website. This

prompted interest in whether other states had posted incorrect information.

METHODS: Online search of health departments using key words,

"potassium iodide", "Fukushima", "radiation emergency", and a search of

press releases in March 2011.

RESULTS: Thirteen (26%) of 50 states’ health department websites

advised that KI should not be taken by shellfish allergic individuals due to

risk of allergic reactions (California included). Eleven additional states had

a primary link to the US Center for Disease Control statement that is

somewhat ambiguous, i.e., ".A seafood or shellfish allergy does not

necessarily mean that you are allergic to iodine"(www.bt.cdc.gov.

radiation.ki.asp). Next, the 31 states with active nuclear reactors for power

generation were considered; eight (26%, California included) contained

statements warning against use of KI in people with shellfish allergies.

CONCLUSIONS: One quarter of state health departments are perpetu-

ating the myth that shellfish allergy is linked to iodine (here, KI) allergy.

The AAAAI issued a Practice Paper in 2004 with a strong statement that

IgE-mediated allergy to shellfish is not related to iodine that can be used to

educate government health officials.

875 In-silico Assessment of Potential Allergenicity of TransgenesUsed For The Development of Genetically Modified FoodCrops

A. Mishra1, S. N. Gaur2, N. Arora1; 1Institute of Genomics and Integra-

tive Biology, Delhi, INDIA, 2Vallabhbhai Patel Chest Institute, Delhi,

INDIA.

RATIONALE: Genetically modified (GM) food crops require allerge-

nicity and toxicity assessment of the foreign protein(s) to ensure complete

safety to the consumers. In the present study, an in-silico approach is

employed to evaluate the allergenic potential of five transgenes routinely

used for the development of GM food crops.

METHODS: Sequence homology studies were carried out using-

Structural database of allergenic proteins (SDAP), Allermatch and

Allergen online (Farrp) databases. Transgene(s) evaluated for potential

allergenicity are - manganese superoxide dismutase (Mn-SOD) from

Nicotiana plumbaginifolia, Oryza sativa chitinase, b-1, 3 glucanase from

Medicago sativa and Triticum aestivum, and glycine betaine aldehyde de-

hydrogenase (gbsA) from Bacillus subtilis.

RESULTS: Mn-SOD shares greater than 90% identity with latex allergen

(Hev b 10) and 60% with Aspergillus fumigatusMn-SOD (Asp f 6), while

chitinase shares greater than 70% identity with reported allergens namely

avocado endochitinase and latex class 1 chitinase (Hev b 11). Glucanases

(M. sativa, T. aestivum) and gbsA gene shares 50% homology with aller-

gens like olive, b-1, 3 glucanase (Ole e 9), Cladosporium herbarum alde-

hyde dehydrogenase (Cla h 10) andAlternaria alternata allergen (Alt a 10).

As per Codex, 2003 guidelines, an alignment of >35% identity over 80

amino acid slidingwindow depicts that the query sequencemay be a poten-

tial allergen since it shares high degree of identity with known allergen(s).

CONCLUSION: The present study elucidates the allergenic potential of

five trangenes and these genes should be avoided for development of GM

crops.

876 Similar IgE Binding to Soybean Proteins from a GeneticallyModified Soybean Line, a Near-Isogenic Line and Three OtherNon-GM Soybean Lines Using 10 Sera from Soybean AllergicSubjects

R. Panda1, A. Capt2, C. Herouet-Guicheney2, R. E. Goodman1; 1Univer-

sity of Nebraska Lincoln, Food Allergy Research and Resource Program,

Lincoln, NE, 2Bayer S.A.S., Bayer CropScience, Regulatory Science,

Sophia-Antipolis, FRANCE.

RATIONALE: Food safety guidelines from the Codex Alimentarius

Commission and the European Food Safety Authority recommend evalu-

ating new GM plants for potential changes in endogenous allergenicity if

the plant is considered a common source of food allergy. This study com-

pared IgE binding from soybean allergic subjects to extracts of a glufosi-

nate ammonium herbicide tolerant GM soybean, non-GM near-isoline

and three commercial lines to evaluate potential risks for soybean allergic

consumers.

METHODS: Extracts of soybean lines were compared by IgE binding to

1D- and 2D-PAGE immunoblots using 10 individual soybean allergic sera

and non-soybean allergic control sera. Bound IgE was detected with a

horseradish peroxidase-conjugated monoclonal anti-IgE and chemilumi-

nescent substrate and compared for qualitative differences.

RESULTS: The only difference noted between the GM soybean and the

near-isoline was an additional low intensity spot in the GM soybean by

2D-PAGE immunoblot by sera from one soybean allergic subject. With 6

sera, an obvious IgE binding band/spot was noticed in 1D/2D blots of one of

the non-GM commercial lines, which correlated with IgE binding to

phytohemagglutinin in navy bean, suggesting the presence of a cross-

reactive carbohydrate determinant. Comparison of all 2D-immunoblots

demonstratedminor differences between all extracts for at least one subject.

CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence that LibertyLink soybean

presents an increased risk for soybean allergic subjects especially since

those with soybean allergy should avoid all soybeans. Furthermore, based

on the observed variation among commercial lines, it is not clear that

similar tests are useful to evaluate food safety for typical GM varieties.