4.6 Article

Array-based profiling of ragweed and mugwort pollen allergens

期刊

ALLERGY
卷 63, 期 11, 页码 1543-1549

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1398-9995.2008.01780.x

关键词

allergen microarray; molecule-based allergy diagnosis; mugwort; ragweed

资金

  1. 'Fonds zur Forderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung, FWF' Vienna, Austria [NFN S88, S8802, S8816]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) and mugwort (Artemisia vulgaris) pollen is the main cause of allergic reactions in late summer and autumn. The differential diagnosis between ragweed and mugwort pollen allergy is a frequent problem encountered by allergologists in areas where both plants are present due to shared antigenic structures and overlapping flowering seasons. Objective: To evaluate the sensitization pattern of weed allergic patients towards a large panel of purified allergens in the microarray format and by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Methods: Eight ragweed and six mugwort pollen allergens were purified from natural source or expressed as recombinant proteins in Escherichia coli. Allergens were spotted on protein microarray slides or coated onto ELISA plates. Sera from 19 ragweed and/or mugwort allergic individuals were used to determine the reactivity towards single molecules in both assays. Results: All ragweed allergic individuals were sensitized to Amb a 1, among them 30% were monosensitized to the major ragweed allergen. Art v 1 and Art v 3 were recognized by 89% of mugwort pollen-allergic patients. Extensive cross-reactivity was observed for both patient groups mainly involving the pan-allergens profilin and nonspecific lipid transfer proteins. Comparable IgE profiles were obtained with both allergen microarray and ELISA methods. Conclusions: Molecule-based diagnosis provides essential information for the differential diagnosis between ragweed and mugwort pollen allergy and for the selection of the appropriate allergen source for specific immunotherapy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据