Frontiers Copyright Statement

© Copyright 2007-2015 Frontiers Media SA. All rights reserved.

All content included on this site, such as text, graphics, logos, button icons, images, video/audio clips, downloads, data compilations and software, is the property of or is licensed to Frontiers Media SA (“Frontiers”) or its licensees and/or subcontractors. The copyright in the text of individual articles is the property of their respective authors, subject to a license granted to Frontiers.

The compilation of articles constituting this e-book, wherever published, as well as the compilation of all other content on this site, is the exclusive property of Frontiers. For the conditions for downloading and copying of e-books from Frontiers’ website, please see the Terms for Website Use. If purchasing Frontiers e-books from other websites or sources, the conditions of the website concerned apply.

Images and graphics not forming part of user-contributed materials may not be downloaded or copied without permission.

Individual articles may be downloaded and reproduced in accordance with the principles of the CC-BY licence subject to any copyright or other notices. They may not be re-sold as an e-book.

As author or other contributor you grant a CC-BY licence to others to reproduce your articles, including any graphics and third-party materials supplied by you, in accordance with the Conditions for Website Use and subject to any copyright notices which you include in connection with your articles and materials.

All copyright, and all rights therein, are protected by national and international copyright laws.

The above represents a summary only. For the full conditions see the Conditions for Authors and the Conditions for Website Use.

ISSN 1664-8714
ISBN 978-2-88919-620-3
DOI 10.3389/978-2-88919-620-3

About Frontiers

Frontiers is more than just an open-access publisher of scholarly articles: it is a pioneering approach to the world of academia, radically improving the way scholarly research is managed. The grand vision of Frontiers is a world where all people have an equal opportunity to seek, share and generate knowledge. Frontiers provides immediate and permanent online open access to all its publications, but this alone is not enough to realize our grand goals.

Frontiers Journal Series

The Frontiers Journal Series is a multi-tier and interdisciplinary set of open-access, online journals, promising a paradigm shift from the current review, selection and dissemination processes in academic publishing. All Frontiers journals are driven by researchers for researchers; therefore, they constitute a service to the scholarly community. At the same time, the Frontiers Journal Series operates on a revolutionary invention, the tiered publishing system, initially addressing specific communities of scholars, and gradually climbing up to broader public understanding, thus serving the interests of the lay society, too.

Dedication to quality

Each Frontiers article is a landmark of the highest quality, thanks to genuinely collaborative interactions between authors and review editors, who include some of the world’s best academicians. Research must be certified by peers before entering a stream of knowledge that may eventually reach the public - and shape society; therefore, Frontiers only applies the most rigorous and unbiased reviews.

Frontiers revolutionizes research publishing by freely delivering the most outstanding research, evaluated with no bias from both the academic and social point of view.

By applying the most advanced information technologies, Frontiers is catapulting scholarly publishing into a new generation.

What are Frontiers Research Topics?

Frontiers Research Topics are very popular trademarks of the Frontiers Journals Series: they are collections of at least ten articles, all centered on a particular subject. With their unique mix of varied contributions from Original Research to Review Articles, Frontiers Research Topics unify the most influential researchers, the latest key findings and historical advances in a hot research area! Find out more on how to host your own Frontiers Research Topic or contribute to one as an author by contacting the Frontiers Editorial Office: researchtopics@frontiersin.org

Animal allergens: Common protein characteristics featuring their allergenicity

Topic Editors:

Christiane Hilger, Department of Infection and Immunity, Luxembourg Institute of Health, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg

Annette Kuehn, Department of Infection and Immunity, Luxembourg Institute of Health, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg

Among the many molecules present in our environment, some have the property to induce allergic sensitization and IgE-mediated reactions. The analysis of known major animal allergens has shown that most belong to single protein families: lipocalins and serum albumins for inhalant allergens, EF-hand proteins, tropomyosins and caseins for the digestive allergens. The finding that allergens are often clustered in large families may be related to the fact that common structural, biochemical or functional features contribute to their allergenicity, in addition to external adjuvant factors. Currently, there is no curative treatment for animal allergy available. In order to lower allergic reactions to respiratory allergens in daily life and to food allergens upon accidental exposure, it is important to desensitize concerned patients. Tolerance induction by allergen-specific immunotherapy is in the current focus of an ambitious research.

This Research Topic aims to provide a comprehensive view of the basic and recent insights on the allergenicity of animal allergens in view of their structural and functional aspects as well as allergen-specific immunotherapy.

Citation: Christiane Hilger and Annette Kuehn, eds. (2015). Animal allergens: Common protein characteristics featuring their allergenicity. Lausanne: Frontiers Media. doi: 10.3389/978-2-88919-620-3

Table of Contents

Animal allergens: common protein characteristics featuring their allergenicity

Annette Kuehn and Christiane Hilger

Animal allergens and their presence in the environment

Eva Zahradnik and Monika Raulf

Allergy to uncommon pets: new allergies but the same allergens

Araceli Díaz-Perales, David González-de-Olano, Marina Pérez-Gordo and Carlos Pastor-Vargas

Immune responses to inhalant mammalian allergens

François Hentges, Cathy Léonard, Karthik Arumugam and Christiane Hilger

Orchestration of an uncommon maturation cascade of the house dust mite protease allergen quartet

Marie-Eve Dumez, Julie Herman, Vincenzo Campizi, Moreno Galleni, Alain Jacquet and Andy Chevigné

Helminth allergens, parasite-specific IgE, and its protective role in human immunity

Colin Matthew Fitzsimmons, Franco Harald Falcone and David William Dunne

Fish allergens at a glance: variable allergenicity of parvalbumins, the major fish allergens

Annette Kuehn, Ines Swoboda, Karthik Arumugam, Christiane Hilger and François Hentges

Hymenoptera allergens: from venom to “venome”

Edzard Spillner, Simon Blank and Thilo Jakob

Allergen recognition by innate immune cells: critical role of dendritic and epithelial cells

Fabián Salazar and Amir M. Ghaemmaghami

New vaccines for mammalian allergy using molecular approaches

Marianne van Hage and Gabrielle Pauli

EDITORIAL
published: 05 February 2015
doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2015.00040

Animal allergens: common protein characteristics featuring their allergenicity

Annette Kuehn* and Christiane Hilger

Department of Infection & Immunity, Luxembourg Institute of Health, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg

*Correspondence: annette.kuehn@lih.lu

Edited and reviewed by:

Kendall Arthur Smith, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, USA

Keywords: animal allergen exposure, allergenicity, allergy, biological function, cross-reactivity, immune response, isoallergens, immunotherapy

Allergy to proteins and glycoproteins from animal sources is an important public health problem affecting both children and adults (1–3). Exposure to animal allergens is a key factor for the development of allergy, particularly for the development of allergic airway diseases such as asthma and rhinitis (4, 5). Among the many particles and molecules of animal origin present in our environment, some have the property to induce allergic sensitization and IgE-mediated reactions. Major animal allergens share common protein characteristics as they belong to specific protein families: a majority of inhalant mammalian allergens belong to the lipocalin and serum albumin families. Many mite allergens are proteases, food allergens are often EF-hand proteins, tropomyosins, or caseins (6–8). These protein family clusters observed in allergens suggest that common structural, biochemical, or functional features in addition to external adjuvant factors contribute to their allergenicity. The understanding of the nature their allergenicity is of high importance as it contributes to the development of future diagnostic tools and therapeutic strategies (9–12).

The present compilation of review articles illustrates that animal allergens are ubiquitous. The human immune system is exposed to these proteins not only via the respiratory tract such as for pet and house dust mite allergens via the intestine such as for food and helminth allergens but also via the skin such as for insect allergens.

The extensive review of Zahradnik and Raulf focuses on animal allergens from furry animals in indoor (cat, dog) and outdoor environment (horse, cattle). Allergies to these animal proteins are a public problem as exposure is not limited to the original source but as these molecules become airborne and are carried on clothing to public buildings, the general population is exposed to these allergens. Allergen detection in the private or occupational context is therefore an important first step to develop avoidance strategies for patients at risk.

Díaz-Perales et al. present an overview of uncommon allergenic sources such as exotic pets, which are on the rise as elicitors of animal allergies. These sources are to be considered as relevant because on one hand, their numbers are progressively increasing in households and on the other hand, cross-reactivity to common companion animals via molecules of conserved protein families might occur.

Hentges and colleagues approach the topic of animal allergens from another point of view by focusing on common features of the human immune response to three allergen families, namely, secretoglobins, lipocalins, and serum albumins. Mammalian allergens initiate a broad variety of immunological processes in sensitized patients. The understanding of these mechanisms is crucial for defining strategies of future immunotherapies.

Dumez et al. refer to the most frequent animal elicitors of allergy, which are house dust mites. Among the spectrum of identified mite allergens, they focus on the allergens’ biological function in the context of activation pathways initiating the underlying immune response during sensitization. The answer to the crucial question “why is an allergen an allergen?” seems to be well advanced in this context. This highlights the need for such functional analysis for further animal allergens.

Fitzsimmons, Falcone, and Dunne report on allergens from helminths, which provoke strongly skewed Th2 responses as a normal physiological response upon parasitic infection. This review touches another important aspect: a reduced allergy prevalence has been associated with helminth endemic areas. But on the other hand, many environmental animal allergens have homologs in metazoan parasites, which may lead to cross-reactivity and increase of allergy prevalence. As a perspective, further elucidation of the immunological processes during parasite infection may improve insights for the development of therapeutic strategies in allergy.

Kuehn and colleagues target another important source of animal allergens from food origin, namely fish allergens, which enter the human body by ingestion, inhalation, or skin contact. Molecular and immunological characteristic of the major fish allergens, parvalbumins, as well as the recently described enolases and aldolases, are in the focus while highlighting the variable allergenicity of closely related isoallergens and providing a basis for further studies of the mechanism of sensitization and allergy.

Spillner, Blank, and Jakob detail the recent rapid advances in the characterization of hymenoptera venom allergens. The availability of a substantial number of isolated and recombinant allergens allowed to define individual patient IgE-profiles, to predict cross-reactivity and clinical cross-sensitization. The use of an increasing molecular allergen panel will ultimately allow to monitor and assess therapeutic outcome.

Salazar and Ghaemmaghami report on the role of dendritic and epithelial cells in the process of allergic sensitization. They focus on how different receptors such as C-type lectin, toll-like and protease activated receptors, and the associated signaling pathways contribute to the sensitization process. The elucidation of the molecular mechanisms of dendritic and epithelial cell cross-talk in the process of sensitization will hopefully lead to the development of new therapeutic applications.

Van Hage and Pauli finally summarize the recent advances in immunotherapy for mammalian allergy. Most studies focused on Fel d 1, the major cat allergen, as it is a well characterized allergen in terms of B- and T-cell epitopes. Different molecular design strategies, the use of the molecules in mouse models as well as in clinical trials and therapeutic outcomes are presented. The field is evolving rapidly and further studies are needed to assess safety and efficacy of the new molecules.

We are thankful to all colleagues who contributed to this Research Topic, without their highly valuable expertise in different fields of research on animal allergen research it would not have been possible to realize this issue.

REFERENCES

1. Konradsen JR, Fujisawa T, van Hage M, Hedlin G, Hilger C, Kleine-Tebbe J, et al. Allergy to furry animals: new insights, diagnostic approaches, and challenges. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2014). doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2014.08.026

2. Gaffin JM, Phipatanakul W. The role of indoor allergens in the development of asthma. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol (2009) 9(2):128–35. doi:10.1097/ACI.0b013e32832678b0

3. Nwaru BI, Hickstein L, Panesar SS, Roberts G, Muraro A, Sheikh A, et al. Prevalence of common food allergies in Europe: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Allergy (2014) 69(8):992–1007. doi:10.1111/all.12423

4. Takkouche B, González-Barcala FJ, Etminan M, Fitzgerald M. Exposure to furry pets and the risk of asthma and allergic rhinitis: a meta-analysis. Allergy (2008) 63(7):857–64. doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.2008.01732.x

5. Portnoy J, Kennedy K, Sublett J, Phipatanakul W, Matsui E, Barnes C, et al. Environmental assessment and exposure control: a practice parameter – furry animals. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol (2012) 108(223):e1–15. doi:10.1016/j.anai.2012.02.015

6. Dall’antonia F, Pavkov-Keller T, Zangger K, Keller W. Structure of allergens and structure based epitope predictions. Methods (2014) 66(1):3–21. doi:10.1016/j.ymeth.2013.07.024

7. Schein CH, Ivanciuc O, Midoro-Horiuti T, Goldblum RM, Braun W. An allergen portrait gallery: representative structures and an overview of IgE binding surfaces. Bioinform Biol Insights (2010) 4:113–25. doi:10.4137/BBI.S5737

8. Radauer C, Bublin M, Wagner S, Mari A, Breiteneder H. Allergens are distributed into few protein families and possess a restricted number of biochemical functions. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2008) 121(4):847.e–52.e. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2008.01.025

9. Sastre J. Molecular diagnosis in allergy. Clin Exp Allergy (2010) 40(10):1442–60. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2222.2010.03585.x

10. Ling M, Long AA. Pet dander and difficult-to-control asthma: therapeutic options. Allergy Asthma Proc (2010) 31(5):385–91. doi:10.2500/aap.2010.31.3390

11. Paschke A. Aspects of food processing and its effect on allergen structure. Mol Nutr Food Res (2009) 53(8):959–62. doi:10.1002/mnfr.200800187

12. Ebo DG, Van Vaerenbergh M, de Graaf DC, Bridts CH, De Clerck LS, Sabato V. In vitro diagnosis of hymenoptera venom allergy and further development of component resolved diagnostics. Expert Rev Clin Immunol (2014) 10(3):375–84. doi:10.1586/1744666X.2014.881252

Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Received: 20 January 2015; accepted: 21 January 2015; published online: 05 February 2015.

Citation: Kuehn A and Hilger C (2015) Animal allergens: common protein characteristics featuring their allergenicity. Front. Immunol. 6:40. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2015.00040

This article was submitted to Immunotherapies and Vaccines, a section of the journal Frontiers in Immunology.

Copyright © 2015 Kuehn and Hilger. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

REVIEW ARTICLE
published: 03 March 2014
doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2014.00076

Animal allergens and their presence in the environment

Eva Zahradnik and Monika Raulf*

Institute for Prevention and Occupational Medicine of the German Social Accident Insurance, Institute of the Ruhr-Universität Bochum (IPA), Bochum, Germany

Edited by:

Christiane Hilger, Centre de Recherche Public Santé, Luxembourg

Reviewed by:

Mark A. Suckow, University of Notre Dame, USA
Inge M. Wouters, Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Netherlands

*Correspondence:

Monika Raulf, Center of Allergology/Immunology, Institute for Prevention and Occupational Medicine of the German Social Accident Insurance, Institute of the Ruhr-Universität Bochum (IPA), Bürkle-de-la-Camp-Platz 1, 44789 Bochum, Germany
e-mail: raulf@ipa-dguv.de

Exposure to animal allergens is a major risk factor for sensitization and allergic diseases. Besides mites and cockroaches, the most important animal allergens are derived from mammals. Cat and dog allergies affect the general population; whereas, allergies to rodents or cattle is an occupational problem. Exposure to animal allergens is not limited to direct contact to animals. Based on their aerodynamic properties, mammalian allergens easily become airborne, attach to clothing and hair, and can be spread from one environment to another. For example, the major cat allergen Fel d 1 was frequently found in homes without pets and in public buildings, including schools, day-care centers, and hospitals. Allergen concentrations in a particular environment showed high variability depending on numerous factors. Assessment of allergen exposure levels is a stepwise process that involves dust collection, allergen quantification, and data analysis. Whereas a number of different dust sampling strategies are used, ELISA assays have prevailed in the last years as the standard technique for quantification of allergen concentrations. This review focuses on allergens arising from domestic, farm, and laboratory animals and describes the ubiquity of mammalian allergens in the human environment. It includes an overview of exposure assessment studies carried out in different indoor settings (homes, schools, workplaces) using numerous sampling and analytical methods and summarizes significant factors influencing exposure levels. However, methodological differences among studies have contributed to the variability of the findings and make comparisons between studies difficult. Therefore, a general standardization of methods is needed and recommended.

Keywords: animal allergens, allergen exposure, environmental monitoring, cats, dogs, rodents, cattle, horses

INTRODUCTION

Exposure to animal allergens is a major risk factor for the development of sensitization and allergic diseases such as asthma, allergic rhinitis/conjunctivitis, and atopic dermatitis (1, 2). Generally, intensive contact with any animal, including diverse arthropods, reptiles, birds, and mammals, can induce allergic reactions (3, 4). Apart from ubiquitous mites and cockroaches, the most frequent allergies developed are those to domesticated mammals with fur that are typically kept as pets or farm animals (1, 5). Contact with animals arises via many different occupations and activities. Cats, dogs, guinea pigs, hamsters, and rabbits are all very popular pets in industrialized countries, where the percentage of pet ownership continues to increase (6). Horses, whose use has decreased in agriculture, are today widely owned for recreational riding and show activities. Besides pigs, cows are the most common farm animals used for dairy and meat production. Another important source of occupational animal allergies is the handling of laboratory animals (7). Rodents, especially mice and rats, are kept in large numbers in research facilities of universities and pharmaceutical industries. In addition to these rodents housed in laboratories or occasionally kept as pets, mice, and rats can infest human urban and agricultural environments, where they find food supplies and have few predators.

During the past few decades, the distribution of various mammalian allergens has been extensively studied. Based on this research, it can be stated that animal allergens are present ubiquitously in the human environment, even though concentrations differ considerably. Numerous studies of animal allergen exposure levels in different locations and geographical regions have been published, with variable results that have been attributed to the use of different study designs (e.g., kind and number of samples, exposure grouping, data analysis). A mandatory requirement to assess allergen exposure is the availability of a reliable assay for allergen quantification. Therefore, this article focuses on well-characterized mammalian allergens derived from cats, dogs, mice, rats, cows, and horses for which very sensitive and specific ELISA assays have been validated. Some of these assays are currently commercially available (Indoor Biotechnologies, Charlottesville, VA, USA). Although, several allergens from other mammals (e.g., rabbit, guinea pig, ferret, hamster, chinchilla) have also been identified [summarized by Díaz-Perales et al. (6)], no assays for these species have been developed or published so far.

As a background, a short overview of characteristics of major allergens and sensitization rates in different population groups are presented in this report. The main focus of this review is a summary of exposure assessment studies conducted in recent years. Reported allergen levels and relevant factors associated with concentration differences are described for different exposure settings. Examples of studies were selected based on the fact that they were carried out in different environments (homes, workplaces, public buildings) using various dust sampling methods. Recommendations with regard to standardization of methods are being made for future research.

COMMON FEATURES OF ANIMAL ALLERGENS INFLUENCING THEIR UBIQUITY

Inhalant allergens derived from mammals comprise a large and complex group. With the exception of the cat allergen Fel d 1, the majority of all animal major allergens belong to the lipocalin protein family (8). Typically, lipocalins from mammals are small extracellular proteins composed of approximately 150–170 amino acids with a molecular mass of about 20 kDa. Lipocalins share common biological functions that are predominantly related to the transport of small hydrophobic molecules such as steroids, odorants, and pheromones. Although, the overall amino acid identity between lipocalins is low (usually between 20 and 30%), this protein family is characterized by conserved sequence motifs and a common tertiary structure. Albumins represent another large protein family containing several respiratory allergens. They are components of serum and regulate osmotic pressure of blood. Compared to lipocalins, albumins are of minor allergic importance, but they are often responsible for allergic cross-reactions between animal dander of different species due to the high sequence identity among family members (about 80%) (9, 10). A partial cross-reactivity also exists between several lipocalins; however, the clinical relevance of this feature needs to be assessed (11).

Animal allergens are mainly produced in the liver or secretory glands and localized in animal skin and body fluids, such as urine, saliva, blood, milk, and sweat. These proteins adhere to fur and other surfaces. The allergens can be efficiently dispersed into the environment as animals shed hair and dander, and secrete and excrete fluids. Indoors, the allergens accumulate primarily in different textiles, including carpets, upholstery, mattresses, and curtains where they are detectable for a long time, even after removal of the animal (12–14). In addition, the aerodynamic properties of animal allergens influence their environmental distribution and human exposure. Especially, lipocalins tend to be carried on a diverse range of small dust particles, from <1 to 20 μm. Some proportion of allergens (<5 μm) can stay suspended in the air for extended periods of time (15). In contrast, mite allergens are primarily associated with large-sized (>20 μm) dust particles that settle rapidly (16). Based on their aerodynamic characteristics, animal allergens can be transferred to environments that were never occupied by the animals, such as public buildings, including schools, day-care centers, hospitals, and offices (17). Although, the concentrations of the allergens are low in these environments, they may be high enough to cause symptoms in sensitized individuals (18, 19).

There is strong evidence that clothing is the primary transfer mechanism of allergens. Significantly higher allergen levels have been found in dust collected from pet owners’ clothes than from the clothes of non-pet owners (20, 21). Furthermore, allergen levels have been shown to be dependent on clothing type and washing frequency (22). Egmar et al. (23) studied the accumulation of animal allergens in furniture stores by comparing the dust from factory-new mattresses to used ones. Allergen concentration correlated to the period of time that the mattresses were used by customers. In addition to clothing, human hair is also an important vehicle for transfer, and thus a source of animal allergens (24, 25).

MEASUREMENT OF ALLERGEN EXPOSURE

Measuring airborne allergens is necessary to detect allergen sources, to assess the relationship between allergen exposure, sensitization, and symptoms and to generate preventive measures. Allergen exposure assessment comprises two essential procedures: collection of dust samples and quantification of allergen levels. For both steps, a large variety of sampling strategies and analytical tests are available. However, the different methods used have made it difficult to compare the results among the different studies. Although, a general standardization would be preferred, in practice the variations cannot be avoided. The choice of sampling method is often influenced by the size of the study, available budget, practical performance, aerodynamics of the relevant allergens, and relevance to the personal exposure. Each method has advantages and disadvantages depending on the aims and technical limitations of the investigation (26).

DUST SAMPLING

Reservoir or settled dust sampling by vacuuming of surfaces is the most common method used for determining domestic exposure, e.g., pet allergens at home. It is inexpensive, easy, and fast to perform and therefore, widely applied in large-scale studies. Dust is collected on filters or in nylon bags mounted in special sampling devices that are commercially available (27). Several surfaces can be vacuumed, including floors (smooth or carpeted), beds (mattress or bedding), and furniture (sofas, chairs, desks). Apart from the collector and surface type, differences occur in the power of vacuum cleaner, size of the area sampled, sampling time, and sampling location (living room, bedroom, or kitchen). Collected dust may be sieved by some researchers to separate coarse particles. All the variations described influence the amount and composition of dust, and ultimately the results of the allergen analysis. Results are expressed as allergen per unit weight or per square meter, and although significant relationships have been shown between allergen levels in reservoir dust and allergic diseases, the relevance to personal exposure is still questionable. Many collected dust particles never become airborne and are therefore never inhaled.

Airborne dust sampling using pumps is commonly used in occupational settings, for example to measure mouse allergens in laboratories. According to the aerodynamic properties of animal allergens, airborne levels might be more suitable for defining exposure to pets. This method requires time, expensive equipment, and trained staff. The pumps are noisy and need recharging and calibration. Dust is sampled using several types of filters and sampling heads constructed for collection of particles with defined size (e.g., inhalable, respirable dust). Air may be sampled stationary by low (2–20 L/min) or high volume (60–1100 L/min) pumps, or using person-carried pumps often at flow rates of 2 or 3.5 L/min. Different sample volumes and collection times directly affect the lower detection limits, and dust amounts are strongly dependent on activities in the room causing air disturbance. Results are expressed as allergen per cubic meter of air. In comparison to reservoir dust, airborne dust may be considered a more representative measure of inhaled allergen. Personal sampling in the breathing zone used for task and shift measurements is regarded as a gold standard in occupational settings.

Another method that can be used to collect airborne dust is the ion-charging device (28). This technique is based on a commercial air cleaner, where particles in the air are loaded with a positive charge, which allows them to attract and bind to the negatively charged collector plates. In general, airborne measurements are rarely performed in home environments because of high logistic costs.

Settling or passive airborne dust sampling is an alternative or a complement to the other two sampling techniques. This method collects airborne dust that has settled over a period of time (e.g., 2 weeks) on a certain sampling height (e.g., 1.5 m above the floor). In recent years, several sampling devices have been used such as Petri dishes (29), aluminum foil-covered boxes (30), or electrostatic cloths (31). Results are expressed in allergen per square meter (and per day). Settling dust seems to correlate moderately with both airborne dust as well as reservoir dust. Due to its low cost, ease of use, and simple transport, this method is suitable for large-scale exposure studies.

ALLERGEN ANALYSIS

Standard methods for allergen quantification are immunoassays based on specific antibodies directed against the allergens. A broad panel of assays has been developed (32), but some methods such as quantitative immunelectrophoresis or ELISA inhibition are hardly used. In the past two decades, ELISAs (enzyme linked immunosorbent assay) in “sandwich” design have been established as the gold standard for allergen analysis (33). The antibodies may be either monoclonal or polyclonal against either allergen mixtures or single allergens. Variations occur according to the source, specificity and purity of antibodies. In particular, the choice of standard (e.g., animal dander extract or purified or recombinant major allergens) and its protein determination method (Bradford-, BCA-, Lowry-assay, amino acid analysis) may influence the resulting values up to several orders of magnitude. Furthermore, several detection (conjugates) and visualization (substrates) methods are available.

The increasing interest and need to quantify allergens in different environments in recent years has led to the development of multiplex arrays for indoor allergens (MARIA) (34). Multiplex technology uses the same (or equivalent) antibody combinations used in ELISAs. Capture antibodies are covalently coupled to polystyrene beads that are internally labeled with fluorophores. Combining different bead types with different antibodies allows simultaneous measurement of several allergens in a single test.

CATS AND DOGS

The popularity of cats and dogs as pets means that allergy to both animals affects the general population. In Europe, the frequency of pet ownership is highly variable. Cat ownership ranged from 7.2 to 35% (average 14.9%) and dog ownership from 5.4 to 35% (average 12%) across 12 European birth cohorts with a total of 25,056 subjects (35). In the United States, according to the American Pet Products Manufacturers Association, nearly 40 and 33% of households own dogs and cats, respectively (36). Equally, the prevalence of sensitization also varies in different countries because of cultural differences and environmental factors. A large patient-based study GA^2LEN (The Global Asthma and Allergy European Network) investigated the sensitization patterns for diverse inhalant indoor and outdoor allergens across 14 European countries using skin prick testing (5). The overall European sensitization frequency to cats and dogs were very similar, but regional differences were found. Cat sensitization rate was 26.3%, ranging from 16.8 to 49.3%. The rate of sensitization to dog allergens was 27.2%, ranging from 16.1 to 56%. Sensitization rates to both allergens were particularly high in Nordic countries (e.g., Denmark and Finland) and lower in Central/Western and Mediterranean countries (e.g., Austria, Belgium, Italy). In the US Inner City Asthma Study, skin test sensitivity among asthmatic children was 41% to cat allergens and 21% to dog allergens (37). Naturally, in the general population, the sensitization frequencies are much lower compared with those detected in patient populations (5). In a recent survey, performed in Germany (38), 7% of 7025 adult participants were sensitized to cat as well as to dog allergens (detection of specific IgE). Allergy to pets may also occur in some professions where workers are heavily exposed to animal dander during most of their working time. Work-related allergic symptoms have been reported in animal laboratory workers (30% to cats, 25% to dogs) and veterinarians (26% to cats, 19% to dogs) when handling animals (39, 40). However, it has to be considered that these persons may also handle animals before and/or outside of their respective careers.

CAT (FELIS DOMESTICUS)

Cat dander contains several allergens. The major cat allergen Fel d 1 is the most extensively studied animal allergen with regard to its structure, aerodynamic properties, environmental distribution, and the relationship between allergen exposure and the development of allergic disease (41, 42). Fel d 1 is a tetrameric glycoprotein formed by two heterodimers and has an apparent molecular weight of about 38 kDa (43). It reacts with IgE from over 90% of cat-sensitized individuals (44). In contrast to other animal major allergens, Fel d 1 is not a lipocalin. The three dimensional structure of Fel d 1 is very similar to that of uteroglobins, anti-inflammatory proteins, but its biological function is still unknown (45). Fel d 1 is primarily found in cat skin and hair follicles and is produced in sebaceous, anal, and salivary glands (46–48). It is transferred to the fur by licking and grooming. Male cats produce a larger amount of Fel d 1 than female cats (49). Fel d 1 was mainly associated with particles >9 μm, representing approximately 49% of the total allergen recovered. About 23% of airborne Fel d 1 was carried on small particles <4.7 μm (12). Other cat allergens are: Fel d 2 (67 kDa), serum albumin; Fel d 3 (11 kDa), cystatin; the second major cat allergen Fel d 4 (20 kDa), lipocalin; Fel d 5, immunoglobulin A; Fel d 6, immunoglobulin M; Fel d 7 (18 kDa), von Ebner gland protein; and Fel d 8 (24 kDa), latherin (11, 50).

DOG (CANIS FAMILIARIS)

Hair/dander and saliva are the main sources of dog allergens. The major dog allergen, Can f 1 (about 22–24 kDa) belongs to the lipocalin family of proteins and is produced in tongue epithelial tissue (51). About, 70% of dog allergic subjects have been shown to have IgE directed to Can f 1 (51, 52). Similar to Fel d 1 in cats, males produce more Can f 1 than females (53). The particle size distribution of Can f 1 is similar to that of Fel d 1 as well (54). Although, differences in Can f 1 allergen production have been found between different dog breeds, the variability between individuals is very large and a hypoallergenic breed does not exist (53, 55). Further dog allergens are: Can f 2 (24–27 kDa), lipocalin; Can f 3 (67 kDa), serum albumin; Can f 4 (16 kDa), lipocalin; Can f 5 (28 kDa), prostatic kallikrein; and Can f 6 (27–29 kDa), lipocalin (11, 50).

PET EXPOSURES

There are an overwhelming number of publications concerning the quantitative measurements of cat and dog allergens. Studies have been conducted worldwide but the research has been most active in the United States and in European countries. Study results are presented in Table 1 for cat allergens and in Table 2 for dog allergens. Most of the investigations chosen have estimated the levels of both cat and dog allergens in parallel. A further common feature of these studies is the usage of the same (or very similar) quantification method. The sandwich ELISA for cat allergens is based on two monoclonal antibodies, 6F9 and 3E4 against Fel d 1 (56). The sandwich ELISA for dog allergens is a combination of a monoclonal capture antibody 6E9 and polyclonal detection antibody against Can f 1 (57). Both assays are commercially available by Indoor Biotechnologies. Currently, Fel d 1 and Can f 1 can also be quantified with the multiplex array MARIA (Indoor Biotechnologies). In this system, the original Can f 1 ELISA was modified to use two monoclonal antibodies, 10D4 for capture and biotinylated 6E9 for detection. Commercial Fel d 1 and Can f 1 assays use purified natural single allergens as the standard quantified by amino acid analysis, but variations can occur in the protein standard used, which is not always specified in the relevant publications.

Table 1 | Studies related to exposure assessment to cat allergen.

Table 2 | Studies related to exposure assessment to dog allergen.

The most important finding of all studies is that cat and dog allergens are ubiquitously found in every type of human indoor environment, regardless of the presence of pets, most likely due to passive transfer via clothing. Exposure levels vary widely between different environments and geographical regions. For example, a multicenter cross-sectional study measured Fel d 1 levels in mattress dust from 2800 households in 22 municipal areas across Europe (61). European regions showed substantial differences with respect to allergen levels, with the highest concentrations of Fel d 1 found in central European countries followed by the northern and finally southern countries. The overall geometric mean was 0.94 μg/g, ranging from the lowest measured value of 0.12 μg/g in Huelva, Spain to the highest of 3.76 μg/g in Antwerp, Belgium. The major strength of this study was the good comparability among different regions because the identical dust collection protocol was used, and Fel d 1 measurements were performed in one single laboratory using identical batches of ELISA kits.

Apart from the high variability, exposure intensity/degree is primarily related to the presence (past or present) of a pet in the home. Not surprisingly, cat and dog allergen concentrations were found to be much higher in homes with pets than in homes without pets, as shown using both reservoir dust samples (58, 60–62, 64, 73) and air samples (58, 59). In settled dust, there was an 80- to 250-fold difference for Fel d 1, and 25- to 120-fold difference for Can f 1 between houses with and without pets. Higher geometric mean of cat allergens has been also estimated in homes where cats were once present compared with those that never housed cats (61). Homes with outdoor dogs had significantly higher dog allergen levels than homes without any dogs, but significantly lower levels than homes with indoor dogs (73). Another multicenter cross-sectional survey from the United States investigated the distribution of Can f 1 and Fel d 1 within households according to the sampling site and vacuumed surface (60). Independent of the presence of pets, the highest concentrations of both allergens were found in living room sofas. In homes with pets, such high concentrations generally indicated the favorite indoor location of the animals; whereas, in homes without pets, such sites were those that came into most contact with clothing. Additionally, sofas are generally less frequently cleaned than floors or bedding.

Different infrastructural characteristics (urban, suburban, rural) also appear to influence the allergen exposure intensity. Suburban homes contained higher levels of cat and dog allergens than inner city homes, probably reflecting the higher rate of pet ownership in these households (62). In rural homes, the median concentrations of cat and dog allergens in mattresses were significantly lower than in those from urban houses, probably reflecting the different habits of pet owners (75). In rural areas, animals are usually kept outdoors, whereas more indoors pets are found in cities. Moreover, a study from Norway has reported that gender-specific differences can occur in pet allergen exposure among children (63). Girls had higher concentrations of cat and dog allergens in their mattresses compared with boys, also after adjustment for pet ownership. This was most likely caused by differences in behavior, such as a greater affinity among girls to cuddle pets or the tendency to decorate their rooms with soft toys, which may act as reservoirs for allergens.

To explore the differences in allergen distribution among different dog breeds, allergen levels in settled airborne dust (electrostatic cloths) were measured in homes of various so-called hypoallergenic (Labradoodle, Poodle, Spanish Waterdog, Airedale terrier) and non-hypoallergenic dogs (Labrador retriever, control heterogeneous group). Despite Can f 1 differences in hair samples between hypoallergenic and non-hypoallergenic dogs (with enormous variability between individual dogs of the same breed), no differences were observed in environmental levels. Surprisingly, airborne Can f 1 concentrations in homes were similar across different breeds and no evidence was found for a reduced production of allergen by hypoallergenic dogs (55).

Besides domestic settings, many studies on indoor allergens have focused on schools and day-care centers due to lengthy periods that children spend in these locations. A comparison of settled dust samples between these two types of environments suggests that cat and dog allergen levels in schools are higher than in homes where no pets are present (64, 68). These results clearly demonstrate that educational facilities may be the most important site of persistent exposure for some children and thus a risk factor, especially for those who are allergic or asthmatic. Higher allergen concentrations were found in furniture compared to floors (64, 66), consistent with what was described above for personal home environments. Furthermore, carpeted floors contained higher allergen levels than smooth floors (65, 66). Fel d 1 and Can f 1 were also detectable in active airborne dust (ion-charging device) from schools (68) and passive airborne dust (Petri dishes) from day-care centers (67). Karlsson et al. (29) have shown that airborne Fel d 1 concentrations in schools were strongly dependent on the number of children with cats at home. Median cat allergen levels in both Petri dishes and personal air samples were approximately fivefold higher in classes with many cat owners (>20%) compared to classes with few cat owners (<10%).

The widespread distribution of cat and dog allergens is further demonstrated by several studies carried out in other public indoor environments. Fel d 1 and Can f 1 have been measured in reservoir dust from seats and floors inside public buildings such as hotels, cinemas and pubs (74), hospitals (69), office buildings (71), and in public transport vehicles such as buses, trams, and trains (70, 74). In general, seats were more contaminated with pet allergens compared to floors, presumably because they come in direct contact with clothing.

Reports on measuring exposure to pet allergens in occupational settings are rare. One study investigated the allergen levels in veterinary medicine students, and workers in a companion animal hospital using various dust collection methods throughout different locations (72). In personal airborne samples, significant differences in exposure levels were found for Fel d 1 and Can f 1 between the different performed tasks. The highest exposure was observed in the intensive care unit and during practical animal courses for students. Allergen concentrations varied greatly between different locations, with the highest levels measured in the examination and waiting rooms (reservoir dust) and in the intensive care unit (electrostatic cloths) and the lowest in the operating room (both methods). Exposure levels in dust captured by diverse sampling methods only correlated moderately with each other.

RODENTS

Allergy to mice and rats is an important occupational health problem, primarily because these animals are the most widely used in medical research. Rodent allergy is commonly observed among technicians, animal caretakers, physicians, and scientists who work in pharmaceutical industries, university laboratories, and animal breeding facilities. In occupational settings, the prevalence rates of rodent allergies vary from 11 to 44% depending on the diagnostic methods (questionnaire or laboratory testing) used (76). The prevalence of mouse and rat allergy is very similar. In a large cross-sectional survey from Japan that included over 5000 laboratory animal workers, 26% reported allergic symptoms to mice and 25% to rats (39). Sensitization and work-related symptoms occur at the latest, 2–3 years after the initial exposure to laboratory animals (77). Besides an atopic background, the most important risk factor for the development of an allergy to rodents is the level of exposure to laboratory animal allergens. Children of parents who are occupationally exposed to laboratory animals were shown to have more frequently positive skin prick tests against mice, rats, and hamsters compared to children of non-exposed parents (78). Studies from the United States have demonstrated that rodent allergen exposure in domestic environments is also clinically relevant. In inner city children with asthma, the prevalence of mouse sensitization (skin test sensitivity) ranged from 11 to 46% (79), and the prevalence of rat sensitization was estimated to be 21% (80). A recent study from Europe has reported a very low sensitization prevalence (1.6% for mouse and 0.6% for rat) in urban atopic populations without occupational exposure (81).

MOUSE (MUS MUSCULUS)

Rodent allergens can be found in dander, hair, urine, saliva, and serum. Urine is the main source of allergenic proteins in both mice and rats. The major mouse allergen, Mus m 1 (about 19 kDa) is a prealbumin and lipocalin–odorant binding protein (82) belonging to the rodent family of major urinary proteins (MUP) (83). MUPs are produced in the liver and other exocrine glands under hormonal control. Mouse MUPs are encoded by 35 genes, with 15 forms detectable in urine. The expression of MUPs varies according to species, strains, sexes, and individuals. MUPs seem to play a complex role in chemosensory signaling among rodents. Study of particle size distribution revealed that airborne Mus m 1 is carried on particles with aerodynamic diameter ranging from 0.4 to >10 μm, with the majority on particles between 3.3 and 10 μm (84).

To quantify mouse allergens, sandwich ELISAs were developed by several groups using polyclonal antibodies produced in rabbit or sheep (84–86). In these studies, either the purified Mus m 1 or the whole protein from mouse urine was used as the immunogen or standard. Therefore, some assays are known in the literature as mouse urinary allergen (MUA) or MUP. A polyclonal antibody-based assay is commercially available as the Mus m 1 ELISA kit or as a component of the MARIA (Indoor Biotechnologies).

Numerous studies of mouse allergen exposure levels were conducted in occupational settings such as laboratory animal facilities of universities, research institutes, and pharmaceutical companies (Table 3). Ohman et al. (84) demonstrated that Mus m 1 is widely distributed in the air of a major mouse breeding facility, even in rooms that do not house mice (e.g., offices). This was shown for stationary as well as for personal air samples. Direct contact to mice was associated with the highest Mus m 1 levels (up to 560 ng/m^3). Within mouse rooms, airborne Mus m 1 levels were strongly correlated with the number of mice in the room. Another large-scale study (seven different facilities) investigated the personal allergen exposure intensity according to the type of job and the type of tasks performed (85). Animal technicians and caretakers had elevated median MUA exposure levels compared with the scientific staff and supervisors. Removal of contaminated bedding from cages and moving animals into new cages were associated with the highest personal exposure; lower exposures were seen with feeding or handling the animals. However, mouse allergen concentrations during tasks varied enormously among different facilities (<LOD–2000 ng/m^3), probably due to the differences in cleaning practices and feeding technologies, or the local ventilation equipment.

Table 3 | Studies related to exposure assessment to mouse allergen.

A recent study from the Jackson Laboratory assessed mouse allergen exposure across a range of jobs, including non-mouse handlers (87). Although mouse handlers had significantly higher median levels of mouse allergen than non-handlers (4.13 vs. 0.21 ng/m^3), 71% of administrative/support personnel and 68% of materials/supplies handlers had detectable mouse allergen levels, in some cases in concentrations similar to those measured in animal caretakers. Among mouse handlers, those involved in animal care or husbandry had higher allergen levels than those conducting laboratory experiments. Several studies examined the effects of caging systems and various ventilation and automation measures in reducing allergen levels. For example, in undisturbed animal rooms mouse allergen levels were much lower using individually ventilated cage (IVC) system compared to open cages (86). Using a ventilated cage changing wagon or handling animals on ventilated benches also resulted in lower exposure levels (88). Krop et al. (25) investigated the spreading of laboratory animal allergens outside the animal facilities. The authors found that levels of rodent allergens were significantly higher in mattress dust of laboratory animal workers compared with those of unexposed controls. In addition, high amounts of mouse allergens were recovered from hair-covering cups (not routinely used by laboratory animal workers), and therefore the authors concluded that the transfer of allergens via uncovered hair was the most likely cause for the spread of these allergens to the home.

In the past decade, the importance of rodent allergens outside of the workplace has been demonstrated in several studies (Table 3). Mouse allergen seems to be widespread in US communities and may be regarded as an environmental allergen. Phipatanakul et al. (89) analyzed house dust samples (bedroom, living room, and kitchen) from 608 homes of major inner city areas (New York, Baltimore, Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, St Louis, Washington). Ninety-five percent of all homes had detectable Mus m 1 in at least one room, with the highest levels found in kitchens. Matsui et al. (90) compared the distribution of mouse allergen between inner city and suburban homes (surroundings of Baltimore). The prevalence of Mus m 1 was lower in suburban homes (e.g., bedrooms: 69 vs. 94%) and at approximately 100-fold lower concentrations (e.g., living room: 0.99 vs. 0.016 μg/g), compared with homes in the inner city. These differences were confirmed by another study based in Baltimore that analyzed both air samples and settled dust from bedrooms (62). The inner city homes also had significantly higher airborne mouse allergen levels than suburban homes, reflecting the higher rate of reported mouse infestation (80 vs. 5%) in cities.

Quantification of mouse allergen was also performed in school and day-care settings. Mouse allergen was detectable in 81% of settled dust samples collected from 11 schools in a major metropolitan area in the northeastern USA (91). Mouse allergen levels varied greatly between schools with geometric means (GM) ranging from 0.21 to 133 μg/g. In contrast, very low Mus m 1 (GM: 0.01 μg/g) concentrations were found in 86 day-care facilities in North Carolina, with a prevalence of 83% of all samples collected (65). The aim of two other studies was to investigate allergen exposure in schools compared with homes (68, 92). Both studies reported significantly higher levels of mouse allergen in classrooms vs. students’ bedrooms (settled dust samples). Mus m 1 was also detectable in airborne samples from schools using a very sensitive MARIA multiplex array. Airborne and settled dust Mus m 1 levels in classrooms were moderately correlated (r = 0.48; p < 0.0001).

RAT (RATTUS NORVEGICUS)

Analogous to mouse allergens, the major rat allergen Rat n 1 (about 17 kDa) is a prealbumin or α-2u-globulin that belongs to the lipocalin group and to the family of MUPs. The amino acid identity between mouse and rat MUPs is approximately 65% (83, 93). A major difference between species is that MUPs are glycosylated in rats but not in mice. Furthermore, the urine of male rats contains much larger quantities of Rat n 1 than urine collected from female rats. Airborne rat allergen was detected on particles raging from >0.5 to 20 μm with the majority on particles larger than 8 μm (94).

The ELISA assays for rat allergen measurements are based on polyclonal antibodies against whole protein isolated from rat urine (85), or monoclonal antibodies against the major allergen Rat n 1 (80, 95). One assay based on the monoclonal antibodies RUP1 and RUP6 is commercially available by Indoor Biotechnologies as the Rat n 1 ELISA kit or as a component of the MARIA.

As for mice, occupational exposure to rat allergens is well documented in the literature, but with fewer published studies. For many studies, exposure to rodent allergens in the workplace was assessed in parallel, with the same findings (Table 4). Briefly, rat allergen levels in laboratory animal facilities are dependent on room, job, and task (85, 96). More specifically, airborne Rat n 1 was significantly higher in rat rooms than in experimental rooms, and the highest personal exposure was measured for animal technicians and caretakers, compared with students and scientists. Cage cleaning resulted in much higher rat allergen levels than animal handling. In addition, exposure varied strongly with facility. One study assessed the individual exposure to rodent allergens using nasal air samplers and demonstrated the effectiveness of personal respiratory protection equipment (97). This unique sampling device is worn inside the nostrils and controlled by the wearer’s breathing. The inhaled particles are collected by impaction on adhesive tape within the samplers. Using this method, clear differences in allergen levels (2.6 vs. 0.1 ng/h) were seen between high exposure tasks (manual cage emptying, animal handling) and low exposure tasks (automated cage changing, supervision). In addition, nasal air sampling correlated well with conventional sampling using air pumps (r = 0.8). The study also clearly showed that the use of face masks decreased the amount of inhaled allergen by about 90%. Rat allergen was also detected in dust collected from mattresses of laboratory animal workers (25).

Table 4 | Studies related to exposure assessment to rat allergen.

In contrast to mice, the distribution of rat allergens outside of occupational settings is not well studied, probably due to much lower prevalence of rats indoors. Thus far, only one study has examined rat allergen exposure in the home environment (80) and reported Rat n 1 in 33% of inner city homes (settle dust samples). This is in contrast to mouse allergen, which was detectable in 95% of the homes. Rat allergen was more common in the TV/living room (27%) than in the kitchen (19%) and bedroom (21%). The median level for all rooms was below the limit of detection, and there was no correlation between rat and mouse allergens in dust samples. The authors attributed this dissimilarity to the differences in nesting habits between the both rodents. Rats do not nest in buildings, but rather build their nests in underground burrows in close proximity to water. Mice on the other hand are more likely to live indoors and nest near food stores. These territorial differences were compatible with reported rodent infestations, where 51% of families reported mice infestation, whereas only 8% reported problems with rats. Another possible explanation for the disparity between the prevalence of mouse and rat allergen levels is that the rat allergen assay was not sensitive enough to detect allergens in these samples. A second study focusing on allergen exposure in urban schools and homes assessed Rat n 1 concentrations in settled and airborne dust using the very sensitive MARIA technology (68). Again, no significant differences in rat allergen levels were detected in this sample set, suggesting that rat allergen exposure may occur primarily outdoors.

HORSE (EQUUS CABALLUS)

Horse allergy mainly affects people who are in direct contact to horses, either occupationally or for recreational purposes. Exposed subjects are farmers, stable-workers, breeders, veterinarians, and horse owners or riders. The prevalence of horse sensitization in occupational settings varies between 3.6 and 16.5% (98). However, the sensitization rate in the general population is not well known. Some cases of horse allergy, despite a lack of regular exposure, have been described in children (99) and adults (100). A retrospective study of horse allergy revealed a sensitization rate of 2.7% in a population of 23,460 children who underwent skin prick testing (101). A recent Italian multicenter study in an urban population with respiratory allergy reported that the prevalence of sensitization to horse dander was 5.38% among atopic subjects (102). Only 27% of horse-sensitized patients reported direct contact with the animals. Therefore, the authors of both studies recommended that the horse allergen be included in the standard panel for the diagnosis of respiratory allergy.

Several horse allergens have been identified and characterized, with Equ c 1 reported as the most important. Equ c 1 is found at high concentrations in dander and saliva, as well as in small quantities in urine (103). The 22-kDa glycoprotein belongs to the lipocalin family (104) and has surfactant properties (105). The other proteins, Equ c 2, lipocalin (16 kDa); Equ c 3, horse serum albumin (65 kDa); Equ c 4 (18.7 kDa); and Equ c 5 (16.7 kDa), both latherins, were classified as minor allergens (11, 50). The analysis of the allergenic composition of horse dander from several breeds showed considerable inter-breed and within-breed variations but no breed-specific allergens (106). Moreover, all dander extracts contained the most important allergens.

The dispersion of horse allergens have been studied in different environments, including stables and their immediate surroundings as well as in public places such as schools and day-care centers (Table 5). Most of these studies were performed in Sweden, where the rate of horse ownership is high and horseback riding has become increasingly popular. To detect horse allergen in environmental samples, a sandwich ELISA based on monoclonal antibodies was developed and established by Emenius et al. (107). The two monoclonal antibodies, 103 and 14G4, were produced against horse dander extract, and recognize different epitopes of the same molecule, but the target protein was not further characterized. Immunoblotting analysis demonstrated antibody binding to a protein of around 16 kDa (108). However, the horse allergen could not be identified because Equ c 2, Equ c 4, and Equ c 5 are within similar molecular weight range. Therefore, the ELISA assay is often referred to as Equ c x in the literature. In 2009, Emenius et al. (109) assumed that the antibodies recognize the allergen Equ c 4, but further identification is necessary. The horse allergen assay is in the meantime, commercially available and provided as Equ c 4 ELISA (Indoor Biotechnologies) with horse hair extract as the calibration standard. All the studies described below used this monoclonal assay with minor modifications (different standards and detection limits). Allergen concentrations are expressed as units per milliliter, where 1 unit is equal to 1 ng protein of the horse standard.

Table 5 | Studies related to exposure assessment to horse allergen.

The first study performed to detect horse allergen in the environment assessed airborne allergen levels at different distances from the stable (107). As expected, the highest allergen concentrations were measured inside the stable, and were approximately 500-fold higher than levels measured outdoors at the stable entrance. The levels of horse allergen declined rapidly with increasing distance from the stable and were not detected in air samples collected 40 m from the stable. A similar dispersal pattern was obtained with settled dust samples collected from hard surfaces wiped with compresses (allergen levels not stated). The dispersion of airborne horse allergen around the stable was also analyzed by Elfman et al. (108) during different seasons. The authors additionally investigated the influence of weather conditions such as temperature, relative and absolute humidity, wind speed and direction, and reported that horse allergen generally spread about 50 m from the stable and outdoor areas where horses were kept (e.g., pastures, riding grounds = source area). Depending on wind speed and direction, low levels of horse allergen (2–4 U/m^3) were sometimes detected at distances up to 500 m from the source area. Allergen levels did not correlate to air temperature or humidity, but were influenced by the seasons; concentrations in winter were lower than in summer. At the stable entrance, the median level in summer was 316 and 123 U/m^3 in winter, and in the source area 16 and 8.3 U/m^3, respectively. More rain in autumn and a frozen ground in winter were mentioned as possible explanations for the reduced levels of airborne allergen. The rapid decrease in horse allergen with increasing distance from the stable was confirmed by analyzing settled dust collected with electrostatic cloths. All but one sample collected 100 m from the source area were below the detection limit.

Further research by Emenius et al. (109) examined the transfer of horse allergen into homes located near the stables. In apartments, Petri dishes were placed indoors (living rooms) or outdoors (balconies). Only 6 out of 45 indoor samples had detectable horse allergen levels (three families with horse contact) and 16 out of 26 outdoor samples were positive. Indoor levels were about 1–2% of the outdoor levels. In the second part of this study, the dispersion of allergens was investigated using a very unusual method. At different distances from a horse track, aspen leaves were collected and then extracted. The allergen level at 1 m from the track was set to 100%. At a distance of 25 m from the track, <10% of the original allergen concentration was found. In conclusion, horse allergens seem to disperse poorly through the air as allergen levels drop quickly with increasing distance from the source.

The presence of horse allergens in schools was first investigated by Kim et al. (110). Settled dust from desks, chairs, and floors was collected from 8 primary schools and 23 classrooms (n = 92) in Sweden. Horse allergens were found at high levels in most classrooms (median 945 U/g), and asthma and respiratory symptoms were more common in schools where higher levels of horse allergens were measured. No information on the prevalence of horse ownership in the families was available, but common horse contact was expected due to the geographical region (rural suburb of Uppsala). These data were used for two further projects to compare the school environment in China (111) and Korea (112) using the same sampling strategy (settled dust) and analysis method (Equ c × ELISA). In contrast to Swedish classrooms, none of the Chinese samples (n = 78, 39 classrooms) contained horse allergen. In Korea, horse allergen was only detected in one sample (n = 68, 34 classrooms).

The aim of another study was to investigate the correlation between horse allergen levels in schools and the number of children, who came into contact with horses in their leisure time (113). Petri dish and vacuumed dust samples were collected in 116 classrooms from 35 primary and secondary schools situated in inner-cities and in rural locations (county of Uppsala). In classrooms where many children had regular horse contact (>12%), the levels of horse allergen were significantly higher (for both sampling methods) than in classrooms where children reported less or no contact. Furthermore, weekly measurements with Petri dishes were performed in 20 classrooms during a 10-week period. The results showed that horse allergen levels were strongly variable during the 10-weeks and the authors recommended repeated measurements when assessing indoor allergen exposure. Horse allergen contamination was also common in Swedish day-care centers (67), where allergen was detected in 63% of Petri dish dust samples with geometric mean of 5 ng/m^2/day.

CATTLE (BOS DOMESTICUS)

Cattle allergy is almost exclusively associated with occupational exposure and occurs primarily in cattle farmers. Studies in Scandinavian countries found that 5–20% of farmers are sensitized to cattle allergens (114–116). Moreover, the German Cattle Allergy Study has indicated that 9.1% of 5627 farmers with occupational airway diseases were due to cattle allergies (117). The effect of the farming environment on sensitization to different allergens was investigated in children (118) and adults (119). For both, no significant differences were observed with respect to sensitization against most of the common allergens (e.g., house dust mites, pets, pollens). Only cattle sensitization was more prevalent among subjects living on farms compared with those not living on farms.

The main sources of bovine allergens are cow hair and dander, but allergens are also found in urine, saliva, whey, amniotic fluid, and beef (120). Early investigations of bovine materials have found 17 different antigenic components, several of which have been currently identified and characterized as allergens. The lipocalin Bos d 2 is the major respiratory allergen in cow dander (121, 122), with several isoforms in existence (123). It is produced in the sweat glands and transported to the skin surface as a carrier of pheromones (124). Other bovine allergens are: Bos d 3 (11 kDa), calcium-binding protein; Bos d 4 (14 kDa), α-lactoglobulin; Bos d 5 (18 kDa), β-lactoglobulin; Bos d 6 (67 kDa), serum albumin; Bos d 7 (150 kDa), immunoglobulin; and Bos d 8 (19–25 kDa), caseins (11, 50). Bos d 4, 5, and 8 are major allergens in cow’s milk and play an important role in food allergy (125).

Measurements of epithelial bovine allergens have been carried out mainly in occupational settings, stables and homes of farmers (Table 6). To quantify allergen concentrations, several different methods have been developed including: (1) ELISA inhibition with polyclonal antibodies against bovine skin scrape (126), (2) Rocket immunoelectrophoresis with rabbit antiserum against the major allergen Bos d 2 (127), (3) sandwich ELISA with polyclonal antibodies against an extract prepared from hair of different cattle breeds (128), and (4) sandwich ELISA with anti-Bos d 2 monoclonal antibodies 3D4 and mAB1 (129). Recently, the last method with recombinant Bos d 2 as a reference standard was made commercially available (Indoor Biotechnologies).

Table 6 | Studies related to exposure assessment to cattle allergens.

In cow stables, levels of bovine allergen were estimated in airborne dust (129, 130) as well as in settled dust samples (128, 131). All studies reported very high and strongly variable allergen concentrations. Allergen levels differed up to 200-fold between stables and were about 1000-fold higher than in homes. Virtanen et al. (133) examined the long-term variability in airborne allergen concentrations and found that in some cow stables, bovine allergen levels tend to be low, whereas in others the levels are consistently high. These variations are likely explained by factors associated with stable characteristics, such as size, heating, ventilation, and construction details of the building. Measurements of bovine allergens were also performed in stables of other animals (128). Whereas, only trace amounts of allergens were detectable in horse, sheep, pig, and chicken stables, goat stables had slightly increased allergen levels, most likely due to cross-reactivity between cow and goat epithelia.

The presence of cattle allergens in homes of dairy farmers was initially investigated by Hinze et al. (127). Floor dust samples were collected in different rooms of homes from patients with cow hair asthma and analyzed for Bos d 2 using Rocket immunelectrophoresis. The quantities of Bos d 2 detected were dependent on the architectural setup and floor cover. The separation of barn and living quarters (not in the same building) led to a marked reduction in Bos d 2 levels in house dust. Bos d 2 concentrations were also considerably lower in carpets than on tiles or linoleum. Furthermore, high indoor Bos d 2 levels were shown to correlate with the degree of IgE sensitization.

Using the same analytical methods, allergen levels in homes were analyzed in relation to the exposure intensity of cattle farmers (131). Farmers with occupational asthma or rhinitis caused by cow dander were divided into three groups: (1) no contact with cattle (giving-up the cattle husbandry for at least 2 years), (2) indirect exposure through family members, and (3) regular contact with cattle. The results showed a highly significant association between level of exposure and level of allergen. The terminating or limiting contact to cows reduced Bos d 2 concentrations in both living room and mattress dust. The aim of a further study was to assess bovine allergen exposure in homes of cattle farmers by sampling settled airborne dust using electrostatic cloths (128). Cow hair allergens measured by polyclonal antibody-based ELISA were detected with a wide variation among the individual samples (0.3–900 μg/m^2). The results, categorized by room type, showed significantly higher allergen concentrations in changing rooms compared with living rooms, bedrooms, or kitchens. As a control, dust sampling was also performed in urban dwellings. Interestingly, although none of the household members had any contact with cattle farms, the majority of urban samples were positive in the assay, though at very low concentrations. The median of 0.2 μg/m^2 was 100-fold lower in comparison to farmer homes. Because, the dispersal of cattle allergens from rural to urban environments through the ambient air was quite implausible, the authors supposed that the positive results were caused by the cross-reactivity between human and pet hair or by the presence of bovine allergens derived from foods such as milk and beef. Follow-up analysis using monoclonal antibody-based ELISA (Indoor Biotechnologies) confirmed the presence of the major respiratory allergen Bos d 2 in these dust samples and extracts from foods [(134), EAACI abstract].

Finally, the distribution of cattle allergens was assessed at different distances to dairy facilities (132). The study was conducted in the Yakima Valley, Washington State, USA, where over 60 industrial scale dairies operate. Airborne samples were collected inside and outside homes and analyzed using Bos d 2 ELISA (Indoor Biotechnologies). Homes with resident dairy facility workers or cows on the premises were excluded to minimize the influence of occupational exposures on indoor environments. Similar to studies of dispersion of horse allergen, an allergen concentration gradient was observed. Outdoor and indoor results for airborne Bos d 2 showed the highest concentrations at proximal homes closest to dairies (within a 1/4 mile, 0.4 km), and lowest concentrations in distal homes farthest from dairies (>3 miles, 4.8 km). Median outdoor levels of Bos d 2 were significantly higher at proximal and intermediate homes compared with indoor levels.

SUMMARY

Measurements of animal allergens have been extensively performed during the past few decades. Allergen exposure to animal allergens occurs in a wide range of indoor environments including homes, educational facilities, workplaces, and different kind of public buildings and modes of public transportation. Mostly, settled dust and airborne dust samples were collected to measure animal allergen levels. The variability of allergen concentrations in a particular environment is high and dependent on numerous factors, the most important being the presence of animals. Highest allergen levels have generally been found in homes with pets, laboratory animal facilities housing mice or rats, and cow or horse stables. However, high allergen levels have also been frequently detected in locations where no animals reside (e.g., schools and public places), most likely due to passive transfer via human clothing or hair. Some studies have demonstrated that animal allergen levels in these mostly public environments can be significantly higher than in domestic areas without animals. The number of pet owners is one of the strongest predictors of increased allergen levels in these settings. Apart from the presence of animals or number of individuals with direct and frequent contact to animals, differences in allergen concentrations are associated with various building-related factors such as size and type of room, type of flooring, and furniture, cleaning frequency, ventilation system, and also the distance to animal rooms or stables. For example, carpets, mattresses, and upholstery are consistently found to have much higher concentrations of animal allergens than smooth surfaces. Allergen levels can also vary in different parts of the world, which appears to be primarily influenced by regional and cultural differences in pet ownership or livestock farming. Rodent infestation is another factor that is strongly associated with increased mouse allergen levels. In contrast to mites, mammalian allergens seem to be independent of climate or seasonal variations.

Besides environmental factors, sample collection strategies and analytic methods enormously influence the results of exposure measurements. A variety of commercially available and well-characterized sampling equipment have been used in the studies. For each sampling method, differences exist regarding features, such as sampling pump, air flow rate, vacuum power, collection device, filter type, sampling duration and number, and size and type of surfaces sampled. Concerning the ELISA method, which was used to quantify allergen concentrations, the variations comprise the type of antibodies, calibration standard and its protein determination, replicate precision, and detection/visualization methods. Differences in data analysis for example, median, arithmetic, or geometric mean and calculation of the results as nanograms per gram or nanograms per meter square impede the direct comparison of the data produced in different studies.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Environmental allergen exposure plays a significant role in the development of asthma and allergy. Allergic diseases are important public health concerns because of severity of symptoms, reduced quality of life, and limited productivity of the affected persons and high healthcare costs. Therefore, the identification of major sites of exposure and factors influencing allergen levels is essential to prevent allergic health effects. Specific measures to reduce or to avoid exposure to allergens can be initiated. Moreover, the knowledge of exposure levels is helpful to estimate the risk of sensitization or induction of symptoms in occupational or environmental settings. There is still lack of information on risk limits. One reason is the complexity of allergen monitoring, which is a multi-step task requiring various tools and techniques. Although, more allergen exposure data and more accurate methods are becoming available, a general standardization of sampling, and analytical procedures is much needed. The development of consensus protocols can be advantageous in the future for a better comparison of data from different studies. In the case of animal allergens, one basic requirement for standardization is fulfilled through commercial availability of monoclonal sandwich ELISA/MARIA kits for the detection of major allergens. Some assays, e.g., Fel d 1 and Can f 1 ELISA, have already reached global dissemination.

Apart from methodological issues, the estimation of “general” risk levels is complex. In contrast to toxic substances, which affect more or less all exposed individuals, the reactivity to the same allergen can vary extremely between people. Some persons will never become sensitized even at high exposure. Allergen levels associated with an increased risk of disease and/or sensitization are certainly different for healthy, sensitized and allergic persons. Finally, the determination of risk levels should also include the type of environment (workplace, home, school) because the circumstances of personal exposure are different. Therefore, a clear definition of strategy which provides the best proxy of allergen burden for different exposure scenarios is needed. The definition should include the type of dust, dust sampling procedure with validated protocol, type of allergenic substances (allergen mix or single allergen) and standardized immunoassay.

REFERENCES

1. Platts-Mills TA, Vervloet D, Thomas WR, Aalberse RC, Chapman MD. Indoor allergens and asthma: report of the third international workshop. J Allergy Clin Immunol (1997) 100(6 Pt 1):S2–24. doi:10.1016/S0091-6749(97)70292-6

2. Arshad SH. Does exposure to indoor allergens contribute to the development of asthma and allergy? Curr Allergy Asthma Rep (2010) 10(1):49–55. doi:10.1007/s11882-009-0082-6

3. Phillips JF, Lockey RF. Exotic petallergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2009) 123(2):513–5. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2008.09.019

4. Pecquet C. New pets and allergies. Eur J Dermatol (2012) 22(1):14–22. doi:10.1684/ejd.2011.1555

5. Heinzerling LM, Burbach GJ, Edenharter G, Bachert C, Bindslev-Jensen C, Bonini S, et al. GA 2 LEN skin test study I: GA^2LEN harmonization of skin prick testing: novel sensitization patterns for inhalant allergens in Europe. Allergy (2009) 64(10):1498–506. doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.2009.02093.x

6. Díaz-Perales A, González-de-Olano D, Pérez-Gordo M, Pastor-Vargas C. Allergy to uncommon pets: new allergies but the same allergens. Front Immunol (2013) 4:492. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2013.00492

7. Bush RK, Stave GM. Laboratory animal allergy: an update. ILAR J (2003) 44(1):28–51. doi:10.1093/ilar.44.1.28

8. Virtanen T, Kinnunen T, Rytkönen-Nissinen M. Mammalian lipocalin allergens – insights into their enigmatic allergenicity. Clin Exp Allergy (2012) 42(4):494–504. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2222.2011.03903.x

9. Spitzauer S, Pandjaitan B, Söregi G, Mühl S, Ebner C, Kraft D, et al. IgE cross-reactivities against albumins in patients allergic to animals. J Allergy Clin Immunol (1995) 96(6 Pt 1):951–9. doi:10.1016/S0091-6749(95)70233-4

10. Liccardi G, Asero R, D’Amato M, D’Amato G. Role of sensitization to mammalian serum albumin in allergic disease. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep (2011) 11(5):421–6. doi:10.1007/s11882-011-0214-7

11. Hilger C, Kuehn A, Hentges F. Animal lipocalin allergens. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep (2012) 12(5):438–47. doi:10.1007/s11882-012-0283-2

12. Custovic A, Simpson A, Pahdi H, Green RM, Chapman MD, Woodcock A. Distribution, aerodynamic characteristics, and removal of the major cat allergen Fel d 1 in British homes. Thorax (1998) 53(1):33–8. doi:10.1136/thx.53.1.33

13. Arlian LG, Neal JS, Morgan MS, Rapp CM, Clobes AL. Distribution and removal of cat, dog and mite allergens on smooth surfaces in homes with and without pets. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol (2001) 87(4):296–302. doi:10.1016/S1081-1206(10)62243-0

14. Wood RA, Chapman MD, Adkinson NF, Eggleston PA. The effect of cat removal on allergen content in household-dust samples. J Allergy Clin Immunol (1989) 83(4):730–4. doi:10.1016/0091-6749(89)90006-7

15. Bush RK, Wood RA, Eggleston PA. Laboratory animal allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol (1998) 102(1):99–112. doi:10.1016/S0091-6749(98)70060-0

16. de Blay F, Heymann PW, Chapman MD, Platts-Mills TA. Airborne dust mite allergens: comparison of group II allergens with group I mite allergen and cat-allergen Fel d I. J Allergy Clin Immunol (1991) 88(6):919–26. doi:10.1016/0091-6749(91)90249-N

17. Martin IR, Wickens K, Patchett K, Kent R, Fitzharris P, Siebers R, et al. Cat allergen levels in public places in New Zealand. N Z Med J (1998) 111(1074):356–8.

18. Almqvist C, Wickman M, Perfetti L, Berglind N, Renström A, Hedrén M, et al. Worsening of asthma in children allergic to cats, after indirect exposure to cat at school. Am J Respir Crit Care Med (2001) 163(3 Pt 1):694–8. doi:10.1164/ajrccm.163.3.2006114

19. Ritz BR, Hoelscher B, Frye C, Meyer I, Heinrich J. Allergic sensitization owing to ‘second-hand’ cat exposure in schools. Allergy (2002) 57(4):357–61. doi:10.1034/j.1398-9995.2002.1s3404.x

20. Patchett K, Lewis S, Crane J, Fitzharris P. Cat allergen (Fel d 1) levels on school children’s clothing and in primary school classrooms in Wellington, New Zealand. J Allergy Clin Immunol (1997) 100(6 Pt 1):755–9. doi:10.1016/S0091-6749(97)70269-0

21. Berge M, Munir AK, Dreborg S. Concentrations of cat (Fel d1), dog (Can f1) and mite (Der f1 and Der p1) allergens in the clothing and school environment of Swedish schoolchildren with and without pets at home. Pediatr Allergy Immunol (1998) 9(1):25–30. doi:10.1111/j.1399-3038.1998.tb00296.x

22. de Lucca SD, O’Meara TJ, Tovey ER. Exposure to mite and cat allergens on a range of clothing items at home and the transfer of cat allergen in the workplace. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2000) 106(5):874–9. doi:10.1067/mai.2000.110804

23. Egmar AC, Almqvist C, Emenius G, Lilja G, Wickman M. Deposition of cat (Fel d 1), dog (Can f 1), and horse allergen over time in public environments – a model of dispersion. Allergy (1998) 53(10):957–61. doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.1998.tb03796.x

24. Karlsson A-S, Renström A. Human hair is a potential source of cat allergen contamination of ambient air. Allergy (2005) 60(7):961–4. doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.2005.00796.x

25. Krop EJM, Doekes G, Stone MJ, Aalberse RC, van der Zee JS. Spreading of occupational allergens: laboratory animal allergens on hair-covering caps and in mattress dust of laboratory animal workers. Occup Environ Med (2007) 64(4):267–72. doi:10.1136/oem.2006.028845

26. Renström A. Exposure to airborne allergens: a review of sampling methods. J Environ Monit (2002) 4(5):619–22. doi:10.1039/B202756A

27. Schram-Bijkerk D, Doekes G, Boeve M, Douwes J, Riedler J, Ublagger E, et al. Exposure to microbial components and allergens in population studies: a comparison of two house dust collection methods applied by participants and fieldworkers. Indoor Air (2006) 16(6):414–25. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0668.2006.00435.x

28. Parvaneh S, Elfman L, Ahlf E, Nybom R, Elfman LH, van Hage-Hamsten M. A new method for collecting airborne allergens. Allergy (2000) 55(12):1148–54. doi:10.1034/j.1398-9995.2000.00652.x

29. Karlsson A-S, Hedrén M, Almqvist C, Larsson K, Renström A. Evaluation of Petri dish sampling for assessment of cat allergen in airborne dust. Allergy (2002) 57(2):164–8. doi:10.1034/j.1398-9995.2002.1s3297.x

30. Würtz H, Sigsgaard T, Valbjørn O, Doekes G, Meyer HW. The dustfall collector – a simple passive tool for long-term collection of airborne dust: a project under the Danish Mould in Buildings program (DAMIB). Indoor Air (2005) 15(Suppl 9):33–40. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0668.2005.00342.x

31. Noss I, Wouters IM, Visser M, Heederik Dick JJ, Thorne PS, Brunekreef B, et al. Evaluation of a low-cost electrostatic dust fall collector for indoor air endotoxin exposure assessment. Appl Environ Microbiol (2008) 74(18):5621–7. doi:10.1128/AEM.00619-08

32. Grier TJ. Laboratory methods for allergen extract analysis and quality control. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol (2001) 21(2–3):111–40. doi:10.1385/CRIAI:21:2-3:111

33. Chapman MD, Vailes LD, Ichikawa K. Immunoassays for indoor allergens. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol (2000) 18(3):285–300. doi:10.1385/CRIAI:18:3:285

34. Earle CD, King EM, Tsay A, Pittman K, Saric B, Vailes L, et al. High-throughput fluorescent multiplex array for indoor allergen exposure assessment. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2007) 119(2):428–33. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2006.11.004

35. Eller E, Roll S, Chen C-M, Herbarth O, Wichmann H-E, Berg A, et al. Meta-analysis of determinants for pet ownership in 12 European birth cohorts on asthma and allergies: a GA 2 LEN initiative. Allergy (2008) 63(11):1491–8. doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.2008.01790.x

36. Portnoy JM, Kennedy K, Sublett JL, Phipatanakul W, Matsui E, Barnes C, et al. Environmental assessment and exposure control: a practice parameter – furry animals. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol (2012) 108(4):223.e1. doi:10.1016/j.anai.2012.02.015

37. Gruchalla RS, Pongracic J, Plaut M, Evans R III, Visness CM, Walter M, et al. Inner City Asthma Study: relationships among sensitivity, allergen exposure, and asthma morbidity. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2005) 115(3):478–85. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2004.12.006

38. Haftenberger M, Laußmann D, Ellert U, Kalcklösch M, Langen U, Schlaud M, et al. Prävalenz von sensibilisierungen gegen inhalations- und nahrungsmittelallergene. Ergebnisse der Studie zur Gesundheit Erwachsener in Deutschland (DEGS1). Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz (2013) 56(5–6):687–97. doi:10.1007/s00103-012-1658-1

39. Aoyama K, Ueda A, Manda F, Matsushita T, Ueda T, Yamauchi C. Allergy to laboratory animals: an epidemiological study. Br J Ind Med (1992) 49(1):41–7.

40. Susitaival P, Kirk JH, Schenker MB. Atopic symptoms among California veterinarians. Am J Ind Med (2003) 44(2):166–71. doi:10.1002/ajim.10253

41. Chapman MD, Wood RA. The role and remediation of animal allergens in allergic diseases. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2001) 107(3):S414. doi:10.1067/mai.2001.113672

42. Grönlund H, Saarne T, Gafvelin G, van Hage M. The major cat allergen, Fel d 1, in diagnosis and therapy. Int Arch Allergy Immunol (2010) 151(4):265–74. doi:10.1159/000250435

43. Kristensen AK, Schou C, Roepstorff P. Determination of isoforms, N-linked glycan structure and disulfide bond linkages of the major cat allergen Fel d1 by a mass spectrometric approach. Biol Chem (1997) 378(8):899–908.

44. van Ree R, van Leeuwen W, Bulder I, Bond J, Aalberse RC. Purified natural and recombinant Fel d 1 and cat albumin in in vitro diagnostics for cat allerg. J Allergy Clin Immunol (1999) 104(6):1223–30. doi:10.1016/S0091-6749(99)70017-5

45. Kaiser L, Velickovic TC, Badia-Martinez D, Adedoyin J, Thunberg S, Hallén D, et al. Structural characterization of the tetrameric form of the major cat allergen Fel d 1. J Mol Biol (2007) 370(4):714–27. doi:10.1016/j.jmb.2007.04.074

46. Dabrowski AJ, Van der Brempt X, Soler M, Seguret N, Lucciani P, Charpin D, et al. Cat skin as an important source of Fel d I allergen. J Allergy Clin Immunol (1990) 86(4 Pt 1):462–5. doi:10.1016/S0091-6749(05)80200-3

47. Charpin C, Mata P, Charpin D, Lavaut MN, Allasia C, Vervloet D. Fel d I allergen distribution in cat fur and skin. J Allergy Clin Immunol (1991) 88(1):77–82. doi:10.1016/0091-6749(91)90303-6

48. de Andrade AD, Birnbaum J, Magalon C, Magnol JP, Lanteaume A, Charpin D, et al. Fel d I levels in cat anal glands. Clin Exp Allergy (1996) 26(2):178–80. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2222.1996.tb00077.x

49. Jalil-Colome J, de Andrade AD, Birnbaum J, Casanova D, Mège JL, Lanteaume A, et al. Sex difference in Fel d 1 allergen production. J Allergy Clin Immunol (1996) 98(1):165–8. doi:10.1016/S0091-6749(96)70238-5

50. Virtanen T, Kinnunen T. Mammalian allergens. Clin Allergy Immunol (2008) 21:201–18. doi:10.3109/9781420061987.012

51. Konieczny A, Morgenstern JP, Bizinkauskas CB, Lilley CH, Brauer AW, Bond JF, et al. The major dog allergens, Can f 1 and Can f 2, are salivary lipocalin proteins: cloning and immunological characterization of the recombinant forms. Immunology (1997) 92(4):577–86. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2567.1997.00386.x

52. de Groot H, Goei KG, van Swieten P, Aalberse RC. Affinity purification of a major and a minor allergen from dog extract: serologic activity of affinity-purified Can f I and of Can f I-depleted extract. J Allergy Clin Immunol (1991) 87(6):1056–65. doi:10.1016/0091-6749(91)92150-Y

53. Ramadour M, Guetat M, Guetat J, El Biaze M, Magnan A, Vervloet D. Dog factor differences in Can f 1 allergen production. Allergy (2005) 60(8):1060–4. doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.2005.00824.x

54. Custovic A, Green R, Fletcher A, Smith A, Pickering CA, Chapman MD, et al. Aerodynamic properties of the major dog allergen Can f 1: distribution in homes, concentration, and particle size of allergen in the air. Am J Respir Crit Care Med (1997) 155(1):94–8. doi:10.1164/ajrccm.155.1.9001295

55. Vredegoor DW, Willemse T, Chapman MD, Heederik DJ, Krop EJ. Can f 1 levels in hair and homes of different dog breeds: lack of evidence to describe any dog breed as hypoallergenic. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2012) 130(4):904.e–9.e. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2012.05.013

56. Chapman MD, Aalberse RC, Brown MJ, Platts-Mills TA. Monoclonal antibodies to the major feline allergen Fel d I. II. Single step affinity purification of Fel d I, N-terminal sequence analysis, and development of a sensitive two-site immunoassay to assess Fel d I exposure. J Immunol (1988) 140(3):812–8.

57. Ingram JM, Sporik R, Rose G, Honsinger R, Chapman MD, Platts-Mills TA. Quantitative assessment of exposure to dog (Can f 1) and cat (Fel d 1) allergens: relation to sensitization and asthma among children living in Los Alamos, New Mexico. J Allergy Clin Immunol (1995) 96(4):449–56. doi:10.1016/S0091-6749(95)70286-5

58. Custovic A, Simpson B, Simpson A, Hallam C, Craven M, Woodcock A. Relationship between mite, cat, and dog allergens in reservoir dust and ambient air. Allergy (1999) 54(6):612–6. doi:10.1034/j.1398-9995.1999.00062.x

59. Custis NJ, Woodfolk JA, Vaughan JW, Platts-Mills TAE. Quantitative measurement of airborne allergens from dust mites, dogs, and cats using an ion-charging device. Clin Exp Allergy (2003) 33(7):986–91. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2222.2003.01706.x

60. Arbes SJ, Cohn RD, Yin M, Muilenberg ML, Friedman W, Zeldin DC. Dog allergen (Can f 1) and cat allergen (Fel d 1) in US homes: results from the national survey of lead and allergens in housing. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2004) 114(1):111–7. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2004.04.036

61. Heinrich J, Bedada GB, Zock J-P, Chinn S, Norbäck D, Olivieri M, et al. Cat allergen level: its determinants and relationship to specific IgE to cat across European centers. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2006) 118(3):674–81. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2006.06.012

62. Simons E, Curtin-Brosnan J, Buckley T, Breysse P, Eggleston PA. Indoor environmental differences between inner city and suburban homes of children with asthma. J Urban Health (2007) 84(4):577–90. doi:10.1007/s11524-007-9205-3

63. Bertelsen RJ, Instanes C, Granum B, Lødrup Carlsen KC, Hetland G, Carlsen K-H, et al. Gender differences in indoor allergen exposure and association with current rhinitis. Clin Exp Allergy (2010) 40(9):1388–97. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2222.2010.03543.x

64. Perzanowski MS, Rönmark E, Nold B, Lundbäck B, Platts-Mills TA. Relevance of allergens from cats and dogs to asthma in the northernmost province of Sweden: schools as a major site of exposure. J Allergy Clin Immunol (1999) 103(6):1018–24. doi:10.1016/S0091-6749(99)70173-9

65. Arbes SJ, Sever M, Mehta J, Collette N, Thomas B, Zeldin DC. Exposure to indoor allergens in day-care facilities: results from 2 North Carolina counties. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2005) 116(1):133–9. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2005.04.022

66. Tranter DC, Wobbema AT, Norlien K, Dorschner DF. Indoor allergens in Minnesota schools and child care centers. J Occup Environ Hyg (2009) 6(9):582–91. doi:10.1080/15459620903103454

67. Cai G-H, Mälarstig B, Kumlin A, Johansson I, Janson C, Norbäck D. Fungal DNA and petallergen levels in Swedish day care centers and associations with building characteristics. J Environ Monit (2011) 13(7):2018. doi:10.1039/c0em00553c

68. Permaul P, Hoffman E, Fu C, Sheehan W, Baxi S, Gaffin J, et al. Allergens in urban schools and homes of children with asthma. Pediatr Allergy Immunol (2012) 23(6):543–9. doi:10.1111/j.1399-3038.2012.01327.x

69. Custovic A, Fletcher A, Pickering CA, Francis HC, Green R, Smith A, et al. Domestic allergens in public places III: house dust mite, cat, dog and cockroach allergens in British hospitals. Clin Exp Allergy (1998) 28(1):53–9. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2222.1998.00183.x

70. Partti-Pellinen K, Marttila O, Mäkinen-Kiljunen S, Haahtela T. Occurrence of dog, cat, and mite allergens in public transport vehicles. Allergy (2000) 55(1):65–8. doi:10.1034/j.1398-9995.2000.00226.x

71. Macher JM, Tsai FC, Burton LE, Liu KS. Concentrations of cat and dust-mite allergens in dust samples from 92 large US office buildings from the BASE Study. Indoor Air (2005) 15(Suppl 9):82–8. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0668.2005.00347.x

72. Samadi S, Heederik DJJ, Krop EJM, Jamshidifard A-R, Willemse T, Wouters IM. Allergen and endotoxin exposure in a companion animal hospital. Occup Environ Med (2010) 67(7):486–92. doi:10.1136/oem.2009.051342

73. Nicholas C, Wegienka G, Havstad S, Zoratti E, Ownby D, Johnson CC. Dog characteristics and allergen levels in the home. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol (2010) 105(3):228–33. doi:10.1016/j.anai.2010.06.019

74. Custovic A, Green R, Taggart SC, Smith A, Pickering CA, Chapman MD, et al. Domestic allergens in public places. II: dog (Can f1) and cockroach (Bla g 2) allergens in dust and mite, cat, dog and cockroach allergens in the air in public buildings. Clin Exp Allergy (1996) 26(11):1246–52. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2222.1996.tb00521.x

75. Wardzynska A, Majkowska-Wojciechowska B, Pełka J, Korzon L, Kaczała M, Jarzebska M, et al. Association of house dust allergen concentrations with residential conditions in city and in rural houses. World Allergy Organ J (2012) 5(2):22–7. doi:10.1097/WOX.0b013e3182447fa8

76. Jeal H, Jones M. Allergy to rodents: an update. Clin Exp Allergy (2010) 40(11):1593–601. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2222.2010.03609.x

77. Gautrin D, Ghezzo H, Infante-Rivard C, Malo JL. Incidence and determinants of IgE-mediated sensitization in apprentices. A prospective study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med (2000) 162(4 Pt 1):1222–8. doi:10.1164/ajrccm.162.4.2001023

78. Krakowiak A, Szulc B, Górski P. Allergy to laboratory animals in children of parents occupationally exposed to mice, rats and hamsters. Eur Respir J (1999) 14(2):352–6. doi:10.1183/09031936.99.14235299

79. Matsui EC. Role of mouse allergens in allergic disease. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep (2009) 9(5):370–5. doi:10.1007/s11882-009-0054-x

80. Perry T, Matsui E, Merriman B, Duong T, Eggleston P. The prevalence of rat allergen in inner-city homes and its relationship to sensitization and asthma morbidity. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2003) 112(2):346–52. doi:10.1067/mai.2003.1640

81. Liccardi G, Salzillo A, Sofia M, Piccolo A, Dente B, Russo M, et al. Sensitization to rodents (mouse/rat) in an urban atopic population without occupational exposure living in Naples, Italy. Eur Ann Allergy Clin Immunol (2012) 44(5):200–4.

82. Lorusso JR, Moffat S, Ohman JL. Immunologic and biochemical properties of the major mouse urinary allergen (Mus m 1). J Allergy Clin Immunol (1986) 78(5 Pt 1):928–37. doi:10.1016/0091-6749(86)90242-3

83. Cavaggioni A, Mucignat-Caretta C. Major urinary proteins, alpha(2U)-globulins and aphrodisin. Biochim Biophys Acta (2000) 1482(1–2):218–28. doi:10.1016/S0167-4838(00)00149-7

84. Ohman JL, Hagberg K, MacDonald MR, Jones RR, Paigen BJ, Kacergis JB. Distribution of airborne mouse allergen in a major mouse breeding facility. J Allergy Clin Immunol (1994) 94(5):810–7. doi:10.1016/0091-6749(94)90147-3

85. Hollander A, van Run P, Spithoven J, Heederik D, Doekes G. Exposure of laboratory animal workers to airborne rat and mouse urinary allergens. Clin Exp Allergy (1997) 27(6):617–26. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2222.1997.d01-548.x

86. Renström A, Bjoring G, Hoglund AU. Evaluation of individually ventilated cage systems for laboratory rodents: occupational health aspects. Lab Anim (2001) 35(1):42–50. doi:10.1258/0023677011911363

87. Curtin-Brosnan J, Paigen B, Hagberg KA, Langley S, O’Neil EA, Krevans M, et al. Occupational mouse allergen exposure among non-mouse handlers. J Occup Environ Hyg (2010) 7(12):726–34. doi:10.1080/15459624.2010.530906

88. Thulin H, Björkdahl M, Karlsson A-S, Renström A. Reduction of exposure to laboratory animal allergens in a research laboratory. Ann Occup Hyg (2002) 46(1):61–8. doi:10.1093/annhyg/mef022

89. Phipatanakul W, Eggleston PA, Wright EC, Wood RA. Mouse allergen. I. The prevalence of mouse allergen in inner-city homes. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2000) 106(6):1070–4. doi:10.1067/mai.2000.110796

90. Matsui EC, Wood RA, Rand C, Kanchanaraksa S, Swartz L, Eggleston PA. Mouse allergen exposure and mouse skin test sensitivity in suburban, middle-class children with asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2004) 113(5):910–5. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2004.02.034

91. Chew GL, Correa JC, Perzanowski MS. Mouse and cockroach allergens in the dust and air in northeastern United States inner-city public high schools. Indoor Air (2005) 15(4):228–34. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0668.2005.00363.x

92. Sheehan WJ, Rangsithienchai PA, Muilenberg ML, Rogers CA, Lane JP, Ghaemghami J, et al. Mouse allergens in urban elementary schools and homes of children with asthma. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol (2009) 102(2):125–30. doi:10.1016/S1081-1206(10)60242-6

93. Bayard C, Holmquist L, Vesterberg O. Purification and identification of allergenic alpha (2u)-globulin species of rat urine. Biochim Biophys Acta (1996) 1290(2):129–34. doi:10.1016/0304-4165(96)00006-2

94. Gordon S, Tee RD, Lowson D, Wallace J, Newman Taylor AJ. Reduction of airborne allergenic urinary proteins from laboratory rats. Br J Ind Med (1992) 49(6):416–22.

95. Renström A, Larsson PH, Malmberg P, Bayard C. A new amplified monoclonal rat allergen assay used for evaluation of ventilation improvements in animal rooms. J Allergy Clin Immunol (1997) 100(5):649–55. doi:10.1016/S0091-6749(97)70169-6

96. Lieutier-Colas F, Meyer P, Larsson P, Malmberg P, Frossard N, Pauli G, et al. Difference in exposure to airborne major rat allergen (Rat n 1) and to endotoxin in rat quarters according to tasks. Clin Exp Allergy (2001) 31(9):1449–56. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2222.2001.01180.x

97. Renström A, Karlsson AS, Tovey E. Nasal air sampling used for the assessment of occupational allergen exposure and the efficacy of respiratory protection. Clin Exp Allergy (2002) 32(12):1769–75. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2222.2002.01545.x

98. Arseneau AM, Hrabak TM, Waibel KH. Inhalant horse allergens and allergies: a review of the literature. Mil Med (2012) 177(7):877–82. doi:10.7205/MILMED-D-12-00038

99. Roberts G, Lack G. Horse allergy in children. BMJ (2000) 321(7256):286–7. doi:10.1136/bmj.321.7256.286

100. Liccardi G, Dente B, Senna G, Martino M, de D, Amato L, et al. Sensitization to horse allergens without apparent exposure to horse. Report of two cases. Eur Ann Allergy Clin Immunol (2005) 37(9):350–2.

101. Novembre E, Mori F, Barni S, Pucci N, Rossi ME. Should the skin prick test to horse be included in the standard panel for the diagnosis of respiratory allergy? J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol (2009) 19(3):247–9.

102. Liccardi G, D’Amato G, Antonicelli L, Berra A, Billeri L, Canonica G, et al. Sensitization to horse allergens in Italy: a multicentre study in urban atopic subjects without occupational exposure. Int Arch Allergy Immunol (2011) 155(4):412–7. doi:10.1159/000321414

103. Dandeu JP, Rabillon J, Divanovic A, Carmi-Leroy A, David B. Hydrophobic interaction chromatography for isolation and purification of Equ.cl, the horse major allergen. J Chromatogr (1993) 621(1):23–31. doi:10.1016/0378-4347(93)80072-C

104. Gregoire C, Rosinski-Chupin I, Rabillon J, Alzari PM, David B, Dandeu JP. cDNA cloning and sequencing reveal the major horse allergen Equ c1 to be a glycoprotein member of the lipocalin superfamily. J Biol Chem (1996) 271(51):32951–9. doi:10.1074/jbc.271.51.32951

105. Goubran Botros H, Poncet P, Rabillon J, Fontaine T, Laval JM, David B. Biochemical characterization and surfactant properties of horse allergens. Eur J Biochem (2001) 268(10):3126–36. doi:10.1046/j.1432-1327.2001.02217.x

106. Felix K, Ferrándiz R, Einarsson R, Dreborg S. Allergens of horse dander: comparison among breeds and individual animals by immunoblotting. J Allergy Clin Immunol (1996) 98(1):169–71. doi:10.1016/S0091-6749(96)70239-7

107. Emenius G, Larsson PH, Wickman M, Härfast B. Dispersion of horse allergen in the ambient air, detected with sandwich ELISA. Allergy (2001) 56(8):771–4. doi:10.1034/j.1398-9995.2001.056008771.x

108. Elfman L, Brannstrom J, Smedje G. Detection of horse allergen around a stable. Int Arch Allergy Immunol (2008) 145(4):269–76. doi:10.1159/000110885

109. Emenius G, Merritt A-S, Härfast B. Dispersion of horse allergen from stables and areas with horses into homes. Int Arch Allergy Immunol (2009) 150(4):335–42. doi:10.1159/000226234

110. Kim JL, Elfman L, Mi Y, Johansson M, Smedje G, Norbäck D. Current asthma and respiratory symptoms among pupils in relation to dietary factors and allergens in the school environment. Indoor Air (2005) 15(3):170–82. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0668.2005.00334.x

111. Kim JL, Elfman L, Norbäck D. Respiratory symptoms, asthma and allergen levels in schools? Comparison between Korea and Sweden. Indoor Air (2007) 17(2):122–9. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0668.2006.00460.x

112. Zhao ZH, Elfman L, Wang ZH, Zhang Z, Norbäck D. A comparative study of asthma, pollen, cat and dog allergy among pupils and allergen levels in schools in Taiyuan city, China, and Uppsala, Sweden. Indoor Air (2006) 16(6):404–13. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0668.2006.00433.x

113. Merritt A-S, Emenius G, Elfman L, Smedje G. Measurement of horse allergen (Equ cx) in schools. ISRN Allergy (2011) 2011(1):1–6. doi:10.5402/2011/574258

114. Terho EO, Husman K, Vohlonen I, Rautalahti M, Tukiainen H. Allergy to storage mites or cow dander as a cause of rhinitis among Finnish dairy farmers. Allergy (1985) 40(1):23–6. doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.1985.tb04150.x

115. Rautalahti M, Terho EO, Vohlonen I, Husman K. Atopic sensitization of dairy farmers to work-related and common allergens. Eur J Respir Dis Suppl (1987) 152:155–64.

116. Kronqvist M, Johansson E, Pershagen G, Johansson SG, van Hage-Hamsten M. Increasing prevalence of asthma over 12 years among dairy farmers on Gotland, Sweden: storage mites remain dominant allergens. Clin Exp Allergy (1999) 29(1):35–41. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2222.1999.00452.x

117. Heutelbeck ARR, Janicke N, Hilgers R, Kütting B, Drexler H, Hallier E, et al. German cattle allergy study (CAS): public health relevance of cattle-allergic farmers. Int Arch Occup Environ Health (2007) 81(2):201–8. doi:10.1007/s00420-007-0207-y

118. Koskela HO, Happonen KK, Remes ST, Pekkanen J. Effect of farming environment on sensitisation to allergens continues after childhood. Occup Environ Med (2005) 62(9):607–11. doi:10.1136/oem.2004.014852

119. Remes ST, Koskela HO, Iivanainen K, Pekkanen J. Allergen-specific sensitization in asthma and allergic diseases in children: the study on farmers’ and non-farmers’ children. Clin Exp Allergy (2005) 35(2):160–6. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2222.2005.02172.x

120. Prahl P. Allergens in cow hair and dander. Origin of cow allergens in the environment. Allergy (1981) 36(8):561–71. doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.1981.tb01874.x

121. Ylönen J, Mäntyjärvi R, Taivainen A, Virtanen T. Comparison of the antigenic and allergenic properties of three types of bovine epithelial material. Int Arch Allergy Immunol (1992) 99(1):112–7. doi:10.1159/000236343

122. Mäntyjärvi R, Parkkinen S, Rytkönen M, Pentikäinen J, Pelkonen J, Rautiainen J, et al. Complementary DNA cloning of the predominant allergen of bovine dander: a new member in the lipocalin family. J Allergy Clin Immunol (1996) 97(6):1297–303. doi:10.1016/S0091-6749(96)70198-7

123. Rautiainen J, Auriola S, Konttinen A, Virtanen T, Rytkönen-Nissinen M, Zeiler T, et al. Two new variants of the lipocalin allergen Bos d 2. J Chromatogr B Biomed Sci Appl (2001) 763(1–2):91–8. doi:10.1016/S0378-4347(01)00369-3

124. Rautiainen J, Rytkönen M, Syrjänen K, Pentikäinen J, Zeiler T, Virtanen T, et al. Tissue localization of bovine dander allergen Bos d 2. J Allergy Clin Immunol (1998) 101(3):349–53. doi:10.1016/S0091-6749(98)70247-7

125. Restani P, Ballabio C, Di Lorenzo C, Tripodi S, Fiocchi A. Molecular aspects of milk allergens and their role in clinical events. Anal Bioanal Chem (2009) 395(1):47–56. doi:10.1007/s00216-009-2909-3

126. Virtanen T, Louhelainen K, Mäntyjärvi R. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) inhibition method to estimate the level of airborne bovine epidermal antigen in cowsheds. Int Arch Allergy Appl Immunol (1986) 81(3):253–7. doi:10.1159/000234143

127. Hinze S, Bergmann KC, Løwenstein H, Hansen GN. Cow hair allergen (Bos d 2) content in house dust: correlation with sensitization in farmers with cow hair asthma. Int Arch Allergy Immunol (1997) 112(3):231–7. doi:10.1159/000237459

128. Zahradnik E, Sander I, Bruckmaier L, Flagge A, Fleischer C, Schierl R, et al. Development of a sandwich ELISA to measure exposure to occupational cow hair allergens. Int Arch Allergy Immunol (2011) 155(3):225–33. doi:10.1159/000319839

129. Ylönen J, Virtanen T, Rytkönen M, Mäntyjärvi R. Quantification of a major bovine allergen by a two-site immunometric assay based on monoclonal antibodies. Allergy (1994) 49(9):707–12. doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.1994.tb02091.x

130. Virtanen T, Vilhunen P, Husman K, Happonen P, Mäntyjärvi R. Level of airborne bovine epithelial antigen in Finnish cowsheds. Int Arch Occup Environ Health (1988) 60(5):355–60. doi:10.1007/BF00405670

131. Berger I, Schierl R, Ochmann U, Egger U, Scharrer E, Nowak D. Concentrations of dust, allergens and endotoxin in stables, living rooms and mattresses from cattle farmers in southern Bavaria. Ann Agric Environ Med (2005) 12(1):101–7.

132. Williams DL, Breysse PN, McCormack MC, Diette GB, McKenzie S, Geyh AS. Airborne cow allergen, ammonia and particulate matter at homes vary with distance to industrial scale dairy operations: an exposure assessment. Environ Health (2011) 10(1):72. doi:10.1186/1476-069X-10-72

133. Virtanen T, Eskelinen T, Husman K, Mäntyjärvi R. Long- and short-term variability of airborne bovine epithelial antigen concentrations in cowsheds. Int Arch Allergy Immunol (1992) 98(3):252–5. doi:10.1159/000236193

134. Zahradnik E, Sander I, Brüning T, Chapman M, Raulf-Heimsoth M. Quantification of bovine allergens in different dust and food samples – comparison of polyclonal and monoclonal antibody-based ELISAs. The EAACI-WAO World Allergy and Asthma Congress 2013. Milan: (2013). Available from: http://www.sessionplan.com/EAACI-WAO2013/

Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Received: 08 November 2013; accepted: 12 February 2014; published online: 03 March 2014.

Citation: Zahradnik E and Raulf M (2014) Animal allergens and their presence in the environment. Front. Immunol. 5:76. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2014.00076

This article was submitted to Immunotherapies and Vaccines, a section of the journal Frontiers in Immunology.

Copyright © 2014 Zahradnik and Raulf. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

MINI REVIEW ARTICLE
published: 30 December 2013
doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2013.00492

Allergy to uncommon pets: new allergies but the same allergens

Araceli Díaz-Perales[1][†], David González-de-Olano[2][†], Marina Pérez-Gordo[3][†] and Carlos Pastor-Vargas[4]*[†]

1 Center for Plant Biotechnology and Genomics (UPM-INIA), Pozuelo de Alarcón, Madrid, Spain

2 Allergy Unit, Hospital Universitario Fuenlabrada, Madrid, Spain

3 Institute of Molecular Applied Medicine (IMMA), CEU San Pablo School of Medicine, Madrid, Spain

4 Department of Immunology, IIS-Fundación Jiménez Díaz, Madrid, Spain

Edited by:

Annette Kuehn, Centre de Recherche Public de la Santé, Luxembourg

Reviewed by:

Beatrice Jahn-Schmid, Medical University of Vienna, Austria
Christiane Hilger, Centre de Recherche Public de la Santé, Luxembourg

*Correspondence:

Carlos Pastor-Vargas, Department of Immunology, Hospital Fundación Jiménez Díaz, IIS-Fundación Jiménez Díaz, Avda. Reyes Católicos 2, 28040 Madrid, Spain
e-mail: cpastor@fjd.es

†Araceli Díaz-Perales, David González-de-Olano, Marina Pérez-Gordo and Carlos Pastor-Vargas have contributed equally to this work.

The prevalence of exotic pet allergies has been increasing over the last decade. Years ago, the main allergy-causing domestic animals were dogs and cats, although nowadays there is an increasing number of allergic diseases related to insects, rodents, amphibians, fish, and birds, among others. The current socio-economic situation, in which more and more people have to live in small apartments, might be related to this tendency. The main allergic symptoms related to exotic pets are the same as those described for dog and cat allergy: respiratory symptoms. Animal allergens are therefore, important sensitizing agents and an important risk factor for asthma. There are three main protein families implicated in these allergies, which are the lipocalin superfamily, serum albumin family, and secretoglobin superfamily. Detailed knowledge of the characteristics of allergens is crucial to improvement treatment of uncommon-pet allergies.

Keywords: allergens, albumins, lipocalins, pet allergy, uncommon pet

Especially in urban areas, daily exposure to domestic animals, has been described as a potential risk factor for the development of respiratory symptoms and allergic disease, and is an increasingly common problem (1). The most frequent pet allergy is allergy to cats and dogs. However, in recent years it has become more and more popular to have other animals as pets, so that the risk of exposure to new and unknown potential allergens increased. The incidence of allergy to uncommon pets – that is, pets other than cats, dogs, birds, or fish – is unknown because descriptions in the literature include only isolated cases or small series. Nevertheless, the number of scientific publications has increased significantly over the last 10 years (2). Despite the lack of statistics providing the total number of households with exotic or non-traditional pets, such pets are certainly kept in a significant percentage of households. The ever-growing list of exotic pets includes various animals such as rodents (mice, rats, hamsters, guinea pigs, chinchillas, gerbils, jerboas, etc.), other mammals (ferrets, pigs, monkeys), spiders (tarantulas), reptiles (snakes), and exotic birds (3).

Most animal allergens are spread through airborne particles, and these particles have been detected in some animal-free environments (4). Despite the large number of animal allergens described, most of them belong to a small number of families, which is important for the study of their allergenicity and cross-reactivity. Most of the major mammalian allergens belong to one of three families: the lipocalin superfamily, the secretoglobin superfamily, or the serum albumin (SA) family. Within these families, the most widely studied allergens are lipocalin-like proteins and SAs.

This review summarizes the knowledge of the most common exotic animals used as pets, the allergic symptoms they might cause, and the new allergens responsible for those reactions.

EPIDEMIOLOGY AND CLINICAL FEATURES

The number of households with pets is progressively increasing[1]. Six out of every 10 Spanish households – 8.5 million homes – keeps at least one pet, according to a study carried out in 2009 by the Propet pet professional fair[2]. There are around 20 million pets in Spain: 5.5 million dogs, 4 million cats, more than 7 million birds, and around 4.5 million fish. Uncommon animals also taken as pets, such as small mammals, amphibians, and reptiles, form a group of approximately two million. These data are proportionally similar to those described by the American Pet Products Association’s (APPA) 2011–2012 National Pet Owner Survey. This increase is even bigger within the group of exotic or uncommon animals; indeed, until 2008 – the year the financial crisis began – the number of animals imported to our country to later be sold increased by more than 100% relative to the previous decade, according to the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora[3]. This considerable increase in ownership of uncommon pets might be due to trends in consumption or to a larger proportion of people living in small apartments, where having large animals is usually not permitted. As happens with traditional pets such as dogs and cats, sustained contact with these exotic animals can sometimes lead to the development of allergic symptoms.

The most frequently reported clinical features of allergy to uncommon animals are usually the result of inhalation, contact, or bites.

MAMMALS

Exotic mammals are the largest group of uncommon pets. The most frequent symptoms presented after exposure to these animals – i.e., rhinitis, conjunctivitis, and asthma – affect the upper and lower respiratory tract and have been reported in relation to prairie dog (5), chinchilla (6), guinea pig (7, 8), ferret (9, 10), gerbil (11, 12), hamster (13–17), hedgehog (18), rabbit (19–21), hare (22), and monkey (23–25). Contact urticaria has also been reported with chinchilla (6), ferret (10, 26), and hedgehog (18). In cases the owner was bitten by the animal, the subsequent symptoms reported varied from urticaria (15, 27) or respiratory discomfort (28) to anaphylactic shock, as described with gerbil (28), hamster (14, 29, 30), sunda slow loris (2), and mouse (31).

REPTILES

The main symptoms developing after exposure to these animals also affect the upper and lower respiratory tract; indeed, asthma, rhinitis, and conjunctivitis after exposure to iguana (25, 32–34) and lizard (2) have been documented. The symptoms reported after reptile bites range from eruption of crusty pruriginous papules after an iguana bite (35) to anaphylaxis with clear predominance of vascular symptoms after bites by lizard (36–38), crotalus (39), and king cobra (40), but the mechanism underlying these reactions was not studied.

BIRDS

To a greater or lesser extent, mostly all the symptoms prompted by exposure to birds affect the respiratory tract. Besides rhinitis and/or asthma (41, 42), the inhalation of allergens related to exotic birds, and as it happens in cases of exposure to birds not considered as exotic, might sometimes cause hypersensitivity pneumonitis as described after exposure to lovebirds (43, 44), cockatiel (45), pheasants (46), canaries (47), parakeets (48, 49), parrots (50), geese (51), and owls (52). Other respiratory diseases, such as bronchiolitis obliterans due to parakeets, have also been described (53). Patients with bird-egg syndrome may present respiratory symptoms induced by bird antigens and gastrointestinal symptoms after the intake of bird egg (44, 54, 55).

OTHERS

Arachnids have recently come to be regarded as pets as well. Some arachnids, including tarantulas, have hairs that produce urticaria that is not immune-mediated and can result in persistent papular dermatitis, or, when the hairs come into contact with the cornea and conjunctiva, ophthalmia nodosa (56). Generalized rash and hypotension after a spider bite has also been reported (57), but no allergic study was carried out.

ALLERGEN SOURCES

Contrary to popular belief, dander, and not hair, is the main cause of allergy to animals. Dander contains allergens formed in the sebaceous gland secretions and saliva. In animals, as in humans, the skin sheds gradually as microscopic scales. Secretions containing allergens are adhered to hair and stratum corneum of the skin. Small particles are able to remain floating in the air for long periods of time and, when inhaled, cause allergic symptoms in the nose, eyes, and respiratory tract. These particles settle slowly on the floor or furniture and are re-dispersed in the air so that allergens can be inhaled although the pet is not present at the time. For this reason, patients notice animal-allergy symptoms just entering homes or places where there are, although not present at the time. While less frequent, hair can also cause allergy, though animal hair stays at the floor and is not present in ambient air. Few allergens have been described in uncommon pets, and most are homologous to the lipocalin family, the secretoglobins family, the family of immunoglobulins, and SAs.

ALLERGENS TO UNCOMMON MAMMALIAN PETS

Although there is a growing number of reports on allergens mediated by uncommon pets, there is little information about the allergens involved. We will now describe only the allergens already characterized within this family of pets. Not all of them are fully characterized and some of the allergens presented in Table 1 are only partially described and tentatively named. Rodents and other small domestic and laboratory animals have a high sensitizing potential (58). Allergenic proteins of small rodents have been found in hair, urine, and salivary gland extracts. In certain rodents, 10 or more allergens have been identified. The molecular weight of these allergens ranges from 8 kDa to more than 80 kDa. The major allergens of mouse (Mus m 1, Mus m 2), rat (Rat n 1A, Rat n 1B), and guinea pig (Cav p 1, Cav p 2) have all been identified, and extracts are commercially available for each animal. Rabbit allergens are not well described, but at least three individual glycoproteins, Ory c 1, Ory c 2, and Ory c 3 are identified in hair, dander, and urine (21, 59). Most of them are included in the lipocalin family (Table 1). For the Siberian hamster, no allergen has been officially named, although one has been recently sequenced (deposited in GenBank, accession number GI: KF148615). By contrast, IgE immunoblotting revealed three IgE-binding bands of about 18, 21, and 23 kDa which correspond to isoforms of a single allergen which has been identified as a lipocalin (29).

Table 1 | Uncommon pets allergens.

Other popular uncommon pets are small pigs, mini pigs, or teapot pigs. Pig allergy was studied from the point of view of food sensitization and occupational allergy. Pig hair and dander are important inducers of occupational allergies in cattle-exposed farmers (65, 66). More than 10 allergens have been associated with allergic events in patients who are caretakers of this animal. The most prevalent allergens include lipocalin proteins and albumins (Table 1)[4].

The domestic ferret (Mustela putorius furo) is the third most common furred pet in US households. Some case reports have appeared in the literature. A 66-kDa and a novel 17 kDa protein were characterized as putative allergens in ferret extract prepared from fur, urine, feces, and bedding material (9, 10). The 66-kDa protein was assumed to represent ferret albumin because of its in vitro cross-reactivity with cat albumin. The novel 17 kDa showed molecular weight that was similar to lipocalin.

OTHER ALLERGENS IN UNCOMMON PETS

Spiders have become pets because of their small size and ease of care. Most of the reported events regarding these animals are produced by toxicity. Little has been published on environmental spider allergy or allergy to spider bite. However, Bobolea and colleagues identified two new allergens in Holocnemus pluchei: hemocyanin and arginine kinase (67).

In reptiles, the primary IgE-binding proteins are present in the venom, urine, and epithelial cells. The principal allergens have been described among 59–63 and 8–15 kDa but have not been identified yet (68).

Although many allergens have been described in birds, all of them have been associated with ingestion and are not related to the role of birds as pets. Only in some reports which refer to allergy by inhalation, the molecular weights of allergens have been described but without their identification (44).

MAJOR ALLERGENS IN UNCOMMON PETS

Most of the allergens reported in cases of allergy to uncommon pets have been characterized by homology to other allergens previously described in meat or milk animals. Here we present a descriptive summary of the most relevant protein families identified as allergens such as the lipocalin family, SAs, secretoglobins, and other allergens, as described in Table 1. Within these families, the most widely studied allergens are lipocalin-like proteins and SAs.

LIPOCALINS

Most of the important animal-derived allergens belong to the lipocalin protein family (Table 1). Lipocalin allergens are found in dander, saliva, and urine. These allergens disperse effectively and are widely present in indoor environments. Initially, lipocalins were characterized as transport proteins for principally hydrophobic molecules such as retinol, odorants, steroids, and pheromones, but now they are known to be involved in many other biological functions (69).

Lipocalins are a large group comprising proteins from vertebrate and invertebrate animals, plants, and bacteria. The family is part of a larger[5] superfamily, calycins (70).

The amino acid sequences of lipocalins compromise 160–230 residues with an average predicted molecular mass of about 20,000 Da (without post-translational modifications) (70). They can be N- and/or O-glycosylated. The overall amino acid identity between lipocalins is 20–30%, but it can be considerably higher. For example, human lipocalin-9 is more than 50% identical to its rodent homologs, and identities of about 40% are found with Mus m 1, Rat n 1, Equ c 1, and Fel d 4. The amino acid identity of dog Can f 1 with human tear lipocalin is about 60%. Although the sequential identity among lipocalins is low in general, they share a common three-dimensional structure (70). The central β-barrel of lipocalins, which is composed of eight anti-parallel β-strands, encloses an internal ligand-binding site. Most lipocalins contain one or more intramolecular disulfide bonds.

The arrangement of lipocalin molecules in a multisubunit complex (oligomerization) is variable (71). In all, the physicochemical and structural features of the characterized lipocalin allergens are not known to account for their allergenic capacity or to distinguish them from other lipocalin proteins (72). However, they induce IgE production in a large proportion of atopic individuals exposed to the allergen source.

As lipocalins are known to carry small hydrophobic ligands in their internal ligand-binding site, recent studies finding that pollen extracts from birch and several other plants contain E1-phytoprostanes and possibly other Th2-deviating lipid mediators are of interest (73, 74). It has even been suggested that lipid binding can be a key characteristic for many allergens because lipids can directly activate innate immunity (73). Although there are no data supporting the idea that lipocalin allergens would carry immunomodulatory substances favoring allergy, the hypothesis is no doubt worth further examination.

There are only a few T cell epitopes reported for lipocalin allergens, and those examined have proved to be suboptimal. Moreover, the frequency of lipocalin allergen-specific CD4+ T cells is very low in the peripheral blood. Importantly, recent research suggests that the lipocalin allergen-specific T cell repertoires differ considerably between allergic and healthy subjects. These observations are compatible with the hypothesis that the way CD4+ T-helper cells recognize the epitopes of lipocalin allergens may be implicated in the severity of the symptoms (75).

SERUM ALBUMIN

Serum albumins, characterized by a molecular weight of 67 kDa and a tendency to participate in IgE-mediated cross-reactions, are recognized by the serum of 20–30% of patients with some pet allergy (Table 1) (76).

Serum albumin, often referred to simply as albumin, is a globular protein that in humans is encoded by the ALB gene (77). SA is the most abundant plasma protein in mammals. Albumin is essential for maintaining the oncotic pressure needed for proper distribution of body fluids between intravascular compartments and body tissues. It also acts as a plasma carrier by non-specifically binding several hydrophobic steroid hormones and as a transport protein for heme groups and fatty acids. Too much SA in the body can be harmful.

Allergic sensitization to SA can occur by inhalation as well as ingestion. SAs are found in dander and saliva of pets and are important inhalant allergens.

The best characterized member of this family is the bovine serum albumin (BSA). Its covalent bonds maintain its tertiary structure under denaturing conditions (e.g., low pH or heating). The protein is organized in three homologous domains (I–III) and consists of nine loops (three loops/each) connected by 17 covalent disulfide bridges. Most of the disulfide bonds are well protected in the core of the protein and are not readily accessible to the solvent (78). Interestingly, members of this family are important food allergens in bird and mammal species. However, there are no reports of sensitization to SA by inhalation in birds.

SECRETOGLOBIN ALLERGENS

Secretoglobins are the most potent allergens in cat and there have been described as allergens in other pets (21). These proteins show unknown function, and they are produced by the skin and by salivary and lacrimal glands of pets (79). Secretoglobins are transferred to the pelt by licking and grooming. Dried saliva and dandruff are spread from the hair to the surrounding environment as small airborne particles possibly causing sensitization in susceptible individuals (79).

This family consists of two allergic relevant members to pets such as Fel d 1 and Ory c 3. Little is known about rabbit allergen, although on Fel d 1 there is more information. Fel d 1 is a protein produced largely in cat saliva and sebaceous glands. The complete quaternary structure of Fel d 1 has been determined. The allergen is a tetrameric glycoprotein consisting of two disulfide-linked heterodimers. Both chains share an all alpha-helical structure (80).

OTHER ALLERGENS

Other allergens have been described in domestic animals (Table 1), and are included in the family of the caseins, immunoglobulins, gelatins, and transferrins. These are all minor allergens that are present in secretions (e.g., saliva, urine, and semen) and flaking of the animals.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Exotic pet allergy and their associated respiratory symptoms have increased in recent years. Nowadays, avoidance therapy is the best measure for the prevention of any pet allergic reaction. Biomolecular characterization of allergens remains essential to the development of emerging therapeutic modalities to treat respiratory symptoms, such as attenuated allergy vaccines.

This review compiles the existing descriptions of the main exotic or uncommon pets that cause allergy in our environment and the main allergens implicated. Most of the animal allergens described belong to a small number of families. Furthermore, it would be reasonable to study the allergenicity and cross-reactivity of these major pet allergens to improve specific treatment of patients with allergy to animals.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

All author have contributed to the conception, design, and drafting of the paper.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Red de Investigación de Reacciones Adversas a Alérgenos y Fármacos (RIRAAF) and Fondo de Investigación Sanitaria (PI10/00974) supported this study. We thank Oliver Shaw for his assistance in editing the English version.

REFERENCES

1. Custovic A, Simpson A, Woodcock A. Importance of indoor allergens in the induction of allergy and elicitation of allergic disease. Allergy (1998) 53:115–20. doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.1998.tb05011.x

2. Pecquet C. New pets and allergies. Eur J Dermatol (2012) 22:14–22. doi:10.1684/ejd.2011.1555

3. Dutau G, Rance F. “NPAs”: a new allergic risk? Arch Pediatr (2009) 16:396–401. doi:10.1016/j.arcped.2008.12.009

4. Almqvist C, Larsson PH, Egmar AC, Hedren M, Malmberg P, Wickman M. School as a risk environment for children allergic to cats and a site for transfer of cat allergen to homes. J Allergy Clin Immunol (1999) 103:1012–7. doi:10.1016/S0091-6749(99)70172-7

5. Gonzalez de Olano D, Bartolome B, Ortega BC, Perez-Gordo M, Vivanco F, Vargas CP. Allergy to prairie dog lipocalins. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol (2010) 104:97–8. doi:10.1016/j.anai.2009.11.018

6. Fernández-Parra B, Bisson C, Vatini S, Conti A, Cisteró Bahima A. Allergy to Chinchilla. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol (2009) 19:332–3.

7. Zacharisen MC, Levy MB, Shaw JL, Kurup VP. Severe allergic reactions to guinea pig. Clin Mol Allergy (2005) 3:14. doi:10.1186/1476-7961-3-14

8. Hilger C, Swiontek K, Kler S, Diederich C, Lehners C, Vogel L, et al. Evaluation of two new recombinant guinea-pig lipocalins, Cav p 2 and Cav p 3, in the diagnosis of guinea-pig allergy. Clin Exp Allergy (2011) 41:899–908. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2222.2011.03726.x

9. Gonzalez de Olano D, Pastor Vargas C, Cases Ortega B, Perez-Gordo M, Moral Darde V, Vivanco F, et al. Identification of a novel 17-kDa protein as a ferretallergen. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol (2009) 103:177–8. doi:10.1016/S1081-1206(10)60175-5

10. Codina R, Reichmuth D, Lockey RF, Jaen C. Ferretallergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2001) 107:927. doi:10.1067/mai.2001.114704

11. McGivern D, Longbottom J, Davies D. Allergy to gerbils. Clin Allergy (1985) 15:163–5. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2222.1985.tb02269.x

12. de las Heras M, Cuesta-Herranz J, Cases B, de Miguel J, Fernandez-Nieto M, Sastre J, et al. Occupational asthma caused by gerbil: purification and partial characterization of a new gerbil allergen. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol (2010) 104:540–2. doi:10.1016/j.anai.2010.04.007

13. Liccardi G, Senna G, Piccolo A, Salzillo A, Foglia M, De Napoli I, et al. Severe respiratory syndrome induced by allergic mono-sensitization to European hamster (Cricetus cricetus) in a older woman. Eur Ann Allergy Clin Immunol (2008) 40:30–2.

14. Niitsuma T, Tsuji A, Nukaga M, Izawa A, Okita M, Maruoka N, et al. Two cases of anaphylaxis after dwarf hamster bites. Allergy (2003) 58:1081. doi:10.1034/j.1398-9995.2003.00242.x

15. Lim DL, Chan RM, Wen H, Van Bever HP, Chua KY. Anaphylaxis after hamster bites – identification of a novel allergen. Clin Exp Allergy (2004) 34:1122–3. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2222.2004.01992.x

16. Berto JM, Pelaez A, Fernandez E, Lombardero M, Ferrer M. Siberian hamster: a new indoor source of allergic sensitization and respiratory disease. Allergy (2002) 57:155–9. doi:10.1046/j.0105-4538.2001.00001.x

17. Wilson JA. Hamster-hair hypersensitivity in adults of low atopic status. Br Med J (1971) 4:341. doi:10.1136/bmj.4.5783.341

18. Fairley JA, Suchniak J, Paller AS. Hedgehog hives. Arch Dermatol (1999) 135:561–3.

19. Prince E, Zacharisen MC, Kurup VP. Anaphylaxis to rabbit: a case report. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol (1998) 81:272–3. doi:10.1016/S1081-1206(10)62825-6

20. Liccardi G, D’Amato G, Canonica GW, Dente B, Passalacqua G. Severe respiratory allergy induced by indirect exposure to rabbit dander: a case report. Allergy (2004) 59:1237–8. doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.2004.00599.x

21. Hilger C, Kler S, Arumugam K, Revets D, Muller CP, Charpentier C, et al. Identification and isolation of a Fel d 1-like molecule as a major rabbit allergen. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2013). doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2013.04.034

22. Jimenez A, Quirce S, Maranon F, Fernandez-Caldas E, Cuesta J, de las Heras M, et al. Allergic asthma to pet hares. Allergy (2001) 56:1107–8. doi:10.1034/j.1398-9995.2001.00388.x

23. Petry RW, Voss MJ, Kroutil LA, Crowley W, Bush RK, Busse WW. Monkey dander asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol (1985) 75:268–71. doi:10.1016/0091-6749(85)90056-9

24. Passer CC, Hutcheson PS, Slavin RG. Nonoccupationally induced allergy to monkey. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol (2004) 93:402–3. doi:10.1016/S1081-1206(10)61401-9

25. Slavin RG. The tale of the allergist’s life: a series of interesting case reports. Allergy Asthma Proc (2008) 29:417–20. doi:10.2500/aap.2008.29.3140

26. Amsler E, Bayrou O, Pecquet C, Frances C. Five cases of contact dermatitis to a trendy pet. Dermatology (2012) 224:292–4. doi:10.1159/000338890

27. Creel NB, Crowe MA, Mullen GR. Pet hamsters as a source of rat mite dermatitis. Cutis (2003) 71:457–61.

28. Trummer M, Komericki P, Kranke B, Aberer W. Anaphylaxis after a Mongolian gerbil bite. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol (2004) 18:634–5. doi:10.1111/j.1468-3083.2004.00985.x

29. Torres JA, Pastor-Vargas C, de las Heras M, Vivanco F, Cuesta J, Sastre J. An odorant-binding protein as a new allergen from Siberian hamster (Phodopus sungorus). Int Arch Allergy Immunol (2012) 157:109–12. doi:10.1159/000324956

30. Tomitaka A, Suzuki K, Akamatsu H, Matsunaga K. Anaphylaxis after hamster bites: a rare case? Contact Dermatitis (2002) 46:113. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0536.2002.460213.x

31. Thewes M, Rakoski J, Ring J. Anaphylactic reaction after a mouse bite in a 9-year-old girl. Br J Dermatol (1999) 141:179. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2133.1999.02949.x

32. Gonzalez-Delgado P, Soriano Gomis V, Bartolome B, Niveiro HE. Allergy to iguana. Allergol Immunopathol (Madr) (2008) 36:311–2. doi:10.1016/S0301-0546(08)75229-7

33. Kelso JM, Fox RW, Jones RT, Yunginger JW. Allergy to iguana. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2000) 106:369–72. doi:10.1067/mai.2000.108432

34. San Miguel-Moncin MM, Pineda F, Rio C, Alonso R, Tella R, Cistero-Bahima A. Exotic pets are new allergenic sources: allergy to iguana. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol (2006) 16:212–3.

35. Levine EG, Manilov A, McAllister SC, Heymann WR. Iguana bite-induced hypersensitivity reaction. Arch Dermatol (2003) 139:1658–9.

36. Roller JA. Gila monster bite: a case report. Clin Toxicol (1977) 10:423–7. doi:10.3109/15563657709046278

37. Piacentine J, Curry SC, Ryan PJ. Life-threatening anaphylaxis following gila monster bite. Ann Emerg Med (1986) 15:959–61. doi:10.1016/S0196-0644(86)80686-2

38. Cantrell FL. Envenomation by the Mexican beaded lizard: a case report. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol (2003) 41:241–4. doi:10.1081/CLT-120021105

39. Hogan DE, Dire DJ. Anaphylactic shock secondary to rattlesnake bite. Ann Emerg Med (1990) 19:814–6. doi:10.1016/S0196-0644(05)81710-X

40. Veto T, Price R, Silsby JF, Carter JA. Treatment of the first known case of king cobra envenomation in the United Kingdom, complicated by severe anaphylaxis. Anaesthesia (2007) 62:75–8. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2044.2006.04866.x

41. Marks MB. Respiratory tract allergy to household pet birds. Ann Allergy (1984) 52:56–7.

42. Tauer-Reich I, Fruhmann G, Czuppon AB, Baur X. Allergens causing bird fancier’s asthma. Allergy (1994) 49:448–53. doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.1994.tb00838.x

43. Funke M, Fellrath JM. Hypersensitivity pneumonitis secondary to lovebirds: a new cause of bird fancier’s disease. Eur Respir J (2008) 32:517–21. doi:10.1183/09031936.00108507

44. Villas F, Compes E, Fernández-Nieto M, Muñoz MP, Bartolome B, de las Heras M. Bird-egg syndrome caused by Agapornis species (lovebird). J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol (2009) 19:71–2.

45. McCluskey JD, Haight RR, Brooks SM. Cockatiel-induced hypersensitivity pneumonitis. Environ Health Perspect (2002) 110:735–8. doi:10.1289/ehp.02110735

46. Partridge SJ, Pepperell JC, Forrester-Wood C, Ibrahim NB, Raynal A, Swinburn CR. Pheasant rearer’s lung. Occup Med (Lond) (2004) 54:500–3. doi:10.1093/occmed/kqh092

47. Sutton PP, Pearson A, du Bois RM. Canary fancier’s lung. Clin Allergy (1984) 14:429–31. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2222.1984.tb02226.x

48. Sahn SA, Richerson HB. Extremes of clinical presentation in parakeet-fancier’s lung. Arch Intern Med (1972) 130:913–7. doi:10.1001/archinte.1972.03650060103019

49. Arora R, Hagan L. Progressive dyspnea in a 46-year-old woman. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol (2007) 98:191–5. doi:10.1016/S1081-1206(10)60696-5

50. Caruana M, Cornish KS, Bajada S, Jones CF, Cacciottolo J. Rosella parrot exposure as a cause of bird fancier’s lung. Arch Environ Occup Health (2005) 60:187–92. doi:10.3200/AEOH.60.4.187-192

51. Saltoun CA, Harris KE, Mathisen TL, Patterson R. Hypersensitivity pneumonitis resulting from community exposure to Canada goose droppings: when an external environmental antigen becomes an indoor environmental antigen. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol (2000) 84:84–6. doi:10.1016/S1081-1206(10)62745-7

52. Choy AC, Patterson R, Ray AH, Roberts M. Hypersensitivity pneumonitis in a raptor handler and a wild bird fancier. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol (1995) 74:437–41.

53. Daschner A, Moreno-Ancillo A, Barranco P, Lopez-Serrano C. Exposure to parakeets and bronchiolitis obliterans. Int Arch Allergy Immunol (1998) 115:254–6. doi:10.1159/000023909

54. Bernhisel-Broadbent J, Dintzis HM, Dintzis RZ, Sampson HA. Allergenicity and antigenicity of chicken egg ovomucoid (Gal d III) compared with ovalbumin (Gal d I) in children with egg allergy and in mice. J Allergy Clin Immunol (1994) 93:1047–59. doi:10.1016/S0091-6749(94)70054-0

55. Szepfalusi Z, Ebner C, Pandjaitan R, Orlicek F, Scheiner O, Boltz-Nitulescu G, et al. Egg yolk alpha-livetin (chicken serum albumin) is a cross-reactive allergen in the bird-egg syndrome. J Allergy Clin Immunol (1994) 93:932–42. doi:10.1016/0091-6749(94)90388-3

56. Krug LE, Elston DM. What’s eating you? Tarantulas (Theraphosidae). Cutis (2011) 87:10–2.

57. Isbister GK. Acute allergic reaction following contact with a spider. Toxicon (2002) 40:1495–7. doi:10.1016/S0041-0101(02)00147-2

58. Ahluwalia SK, Peng RD, Breysse PN, Diette GB, Curtin-Brosnan J, Aloe C, et al. Mouse allergen is the major allergen of public health relevance in Baltimore City. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2013) 132:830–5. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2013.05.005

59. Phipatanakul W. Rodent allergens. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep (2002) 2:412–6. doi:10.1007/s11882-002-0075-1

60. De las Heras M, Cuesta J, De Miguel J, Fernandez-Nieto M, Pastor C, Vivanco F, et al. Occupational rhinitis and asthma caused by gerbil. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2002) 109(1):S326–7. doi:10.1016/S0091-6749(02)82146-7

61. Hunskaar S, Fosse RT. Allergy to laboratory mice and rats: a review of the pathophysiology, epidemiology and clinical aspects. Lab Anim (1990) 24:358–74. doi:10.1258/002367790780865877

62. Sathish JG, Sethu S, Bielsky MC, de Haan L, French NS, Govindappa K, et al. Challenges and approaches for the development of safer immunomodulatory biologics. Nat Rev Drug Discov (2013) 12(4):306–24. doi:10.1038/nrd3974

63. Posthumus J, James HR, Lane CJ, Matos LA, Platts-Mills TA, Commins SP. Initial description of pork-cat syndrome in the United States. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2013) 131(3):923–5. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2012.12.665

64. Hilger C, Swiontek K, Hentges F, Donnay C, de Blay F, Pauli G. Occupational inhalant allergy to pork followed by food allergy to pork and chicken: sensitization to hemoglobin and serum albumin. Int Arch Allergy Immunol (2010) 151:173–8. doi:10.1159/000236008

65. Viegas S, Mateus V, Almeida-Silva M, Carolino E, Viegas C. Occupational exposure to particulate matter and respiratory symptoms in portuguese Swine barn workers. J Toxicol Environ Health A (2013) 76:1007–14. doi:10.1080/15287394.2013.831720

66. May S, Romberger DJ, Poole JA. Respiratory health effects of large animal farming environments. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev (2012) 15:524–41. doi:10.1080/10937404.2012.744288

67. Bobolea I, Barranco P, Pastor-Vargas C, Iraola V, Vivanco F, Quirce S. Arginine kinase from the cellar spider (Holocnemus pluchei): a new asthma-causing allergen. Int Arch Allergy Immunol (2011) 155:180–6. doi:10.1159/000319822

68. Prescott RA, Potter PC. Hypersensitivity to airborne spitting cobra snake venom. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol (2005) 94:600–3. doi:10.1016/S1081-1206(10)61140-4

69. Hilger C, Kuehn A, Hentges F. Animal lipocalin allergens. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep (2012) 12:438–47. doi:10.1007/s11882-012-0283-2

70. Ganfornina MD, Gutierrez G, Bastiani M, Sanchez D. A phylogenetic analysis of the lipocalin protein family. Mol Biol Evol (2000) 17:114–26. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a026224

71. Akerstrom B, Flower DR, Salier JP. Lipocalins: unity in diversity. Biochim Biophys Acta (2000) 1482:1–8.

72. Virtanen T, Kinnunen T. Mammalian allergens. Clin Allergy Immunol (2008) 21:201–18.

73. Thomas WR, Hales BJ, Smith WA. Structural biology of allergens. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep (2005) 5:388–93. doi:10.1007/s11882-005-0012-1

74. Heinrich J, Gehring U, Douwes J, Koch A, Fahlbusch B, Bischof W, et al. Pets and vermin are associated with high endotoxin levels in house dust. Clin Exp Allergy (2001) 31:1839–45. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2222.2001.01220.x

75. Virtanen T, Kinnunen T, Rytkonen-Nissinen M. Mammalian lipocalin allergens – insights into their enigmatic allergenicity. Clin Exp Allergy (2012) 42:494–504. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2222.2011.03903.x

76. Hentges F. Allergie aux rongeurs. Rev Fr Allergol (2012) 52:242–5. doi:10.1016/j.reval.2012.01.019

77. Hawkins JW, Dugaiczyk A. The human serum albumin gene: structure of a unique locus. Gene (1982) 19:55–8. doi:10.1016/0378-1119(82)90188-3

78. Restani P, Ballabio C, Cattaneo A, Isoardi P, Terracciano L, Fiocchi A. Characterization of bovine serum albumin epitopes and their role in allergic reactions. Allergy (2004) 59(Suppl 78):21–4. doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.2004.00568.x

79. Gronlund H, Saarne T, Gafvelin G, van HM. The major cat allergen, Fel d 1, in diagnosis and therapy. Int Arch Allergy Immunol (2010) 151:265–74. doi:10.1159/000250435

80. Kelly LA, Erwin EA, Platts-Mills TA. The indoor air and asthma: the role of cat allergens. Curr Opin Pulm Med (2012) 18:29–34. doi:10.1097/MCP.0b013e32834db10d

Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Received: 15 October 2013; accepted: 16 December 2013; published online: 30 December 2013.

Citation: Díaz-Perales A, González-de-Olano D, Pérez-Gordo M and Pastor-Vargas C (2013) Allergy to uncommon pets: new allergies but the same allergens. Front. Immunol. 4:492. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2013.00492

This article was submitted to Immunotherapies and Vaccines, a section of the journal Frontiers in Immunology.

Copyright © 2013 Díaz-Perales, González-de-Olano, Pérez-Gordo and Pastor-Vargas. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

[1]http://www.americanpetproducts.org/press_industrytrends.asp

[2]http://www.ifema.es/ferias/propet/default.html

[3]http://www.cites.org

[4]www.allergome.com

[5]http://prosite.expasy.org/PS00213

REVIEW ARTICLE
published: 21 May 2014
doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2014.00234

Immune responses to inhalant mammalian allergens

François Hentges[1], Cathy Léonard[1], Karthik Arumugam[2] and Christiane Hilger[1]*

1 Laboratory of Immunogenetics and Allergology, CRP-Santé, Luxembourg, Luxembourg

2 Laboratory of Retrovirology, CRP-Santé, Luxembourg, Luxembourg

Edited by:

Kendall A. Smith, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, USA

Reviewed by:

Beatrice Jahn-Schmid, Medical University of Vienna, Austria
Markus Ollert, Technische Universität München, Germany

*Correspondence:

Christiane Hilger, Laboratory of Immunogenetics and Allergology, CRP-Santé, 84 Val Fleuri, Luxembourg L-1526, Luxembourg
e-mail: christiane.hilger@crp-sante.lu

In Europe and the USA, at least one person in four is exposed every day to inhalant allergens of mammalian origin, a considerable number is regularly exposed for professional reasons and almost everyone is occasionally exposed to inhalant allergens from pets or domestic animals. The production of IgE to these inhalant allergens, often complicated by asthma and rhinitis, defines the atopic status. However, the immune response to these allergens largely imprints the cellular immune compartment and also drives non-IgE humoral immune responses in the allergic and non-allergic population. During the recent years, it has become clear that IgE antibodies recognize mammalian allergens that belong to three protein or glycoprotein families: the secretoglobins, the lipocalins, and the serum albumins. In this article, we review the humoral and cellular immune responses to the major members of these families and try to define common characteristics and also distinctive features.

Keywords: secretoglobin, lipocalin, albumin, allergen, cellular response, IgE response, cross-reactivity

INTRODUCTION

The immune system of the respiratory tract of children and adults is continuously being exposed to inhaled particles of inorganic and organic origin. Some particles or molecules have potential adjuvant activities, some have allergenic potential such as mite allergens, other molecules for instance of human origin are devoid of immunogenic or allergenic properties. In their daily environment, most people are also exposed to allergens of mammalian origin. The exposure rate can be high for people having pets at home, for farmers who keep or raise domestic animals, and for persons who have other types of professional contact with animals, for instance veterinarians or animal workers in a laboratory setting. However, even people that do not have direct contact with animals may have contact with inhalant allergens that have been shed by animals or that have been carried to public places by animal owners, as documented by the presence of cat allergens in schools and other public places (1). Indeed, allergic sensitization to animal allergens is common in persons who do not have pet animals at home. Data from a large pan-European study show that about 27% of the patients referred to an allergy center for allergic reactions to inhalant allergens were sensitized to cat and/or dog (2). Sensitization was particularly high in Nordic countries, the highest sensitization rate for dogs reaching 56% in Denmark.

As dendritic cells combine antigen presentation capacities with sensing of signals of innate immunity, they are the master players in all types of adaptive immunity. The important role of airway epithelial cells in alarming dendritic cells for allergic sensitization has more recently been highlighted (3, 4). In contrast to certain other inhalant allergens (Der p 1, Der p 2), an inherent capacity of mammalian allergens to trigger the pathways of innate immunity has not been convincingly shown, although a recent publication argues for an enhancing activity of some mammalian allergens on toll-like receptor (TLR) activation by lipid ligands (5). Allergens of mammalian origin do not only induce IgE antibodies but also IgG isotypes and different T cell responses (Th2, Th1, Th17, and regulatory T cells) in allergic and non-allergic persons. We will review the immune responses to three major mammalian allergen families: secretoglobins, lipocalins, and serum albumins. We will focus on the most prominent of their members and try to distinguish common and specific characteristics based on published data.

SECRETOGLOBINS

Fel d 1, the major cat allergen, is a 35-kDa tetrameric glycoprotein formed of two non-covalently linked heterodimers (6, 7). Each heterodimer comprises a light alpha-chain (or chain 1) and a heavy beta-chain (or chain 2) containing an N-linked oligosaccharide (8). Until the recent description of rabbit lipophilin Ory c 3 (9), Fel d 1 was the only known allergen of the secretoglobin family. Both molecules display little sequence identity (24%) despite a high structural identity. There are no protein stretches of more than three consecutive identical amino acids which are common to the two molecules and which could form identical linear epitopes. Surface representation of Fel d 1 overlaid with the sequence of Ory c 3 does not show evidence for significant common discontinuous epitopes (Figure 1). Indeed, IgE cross-reactivity between Fel d 1 and Ory c 3 could not be shown (9).

FIGURE 1 | Comparison of Fel d 1 and Ory c 3 composing the secretoglobin group. Surface representation of Fel d 1 (2EJN) (7) colored by sequence conservation with Ory c 3 (Q9GK63; Q9GK67) (9). Sequence conservation was determined through Consurf (10), the highly variable sequence conservation was identified as deep blue, the average was in white, and the conserved sequences are denoted in deep red.

EXPOSURE AND EFFECT ON THE HUMORAL IMMUNE RESPONSE

Cats are present in 24% of European Union and up to 37% of United States households (11). The level of airborne Fel d 1 in homes with a cat was found to be in the range of 1.8–578 ng/m^3, a comparable level of airborne Fel d 1 ranging from 2.8 to 88.5 ng/m^3 was also measured in 25% of homes without a cat (12). The quantity of Fel d 1 inhaled on airborne particles by children in homes with a cat has been estimated to be 1 μg/day, which is about 100 times the quantity of mite or pollen allergens inhaled in 1 day (13, 14). At the age of 4, already 5.8% of children of a U.K. birth cohort study were sensitized to cat (15) while 16.9% of adults were sensitized in another study (16). In a recent study including 96 cat-allergic patients, IgE antibodies to Fel d 1 represent on average 55% of a cat-specific IgE response, however, with a range from 0 to 100%. Fel d 1 was the cat allergen that bound the highest amount of IgE in 65% of the patients (17). Surprisingly, children exposed to cat during the first year of life are less often skin prick test positive to cat at 12–13 years than controls (18). Exposure to high concentrations of Fel d 1 was found to be associated with lower sensitization in terms of specific IgE but increased levels of IgG (and IgG4) antibodies to Fel d 1 which has led to the concept of “modified Th2 response” (19). Exposure to cat and Fel d 1 was associated with three patterns of humoral responses: an allergic response characterized by the presence of IgE and IgG (often IgG4) to Fel d 1, a modified Th2 response characterized by presence of IgG (mostly IgG4) antibodies but absence of IgE response to Fel d 1, and thirdly an absence of humoral response to Fel d 1 characterized by failure to produce specific IgE or IgG to Fel d 1, even though exposure to Fel d 1 took place (20). However, the analysis of IgE, IgG, and IgG4 antibodies to Fel d 1 in relation to wheezing in two large birth cohorts showed that allergen-specific IgG but not IgG4 antibody levels were related to improved wheezing in children with Fel d 1-specific IgE (21). At this point, it might be interesting to note that a phase I/II a clinical trial using intralymphatic immunotherapy with a technology called modular antigen translocation (MAT) linking Fel d 1 to a construct enhancing its presentation by the MHC class II pathway, increased Fel d 1-specific IgG4 production (22). Thus, exposure to high concentrations of Fel d 1 in the daily environment is associated with clinical improvement in parallel to increased levels of Fel d 1-specific IgG and in particular IgG4 antibodies (19). A similar modified Th2 response can be achieved by high Fel d 1 loading of the antigen-presenting pathway by intralymphatic immunotherapy and MAT technology (22). This is in line with the concept that a modified Th2 response is associated with high antigen exposure.

T CELL RESPONSE AS MEASURED EX VIVO

The frequency of Fel d 1-peptide-specific T cells in peripheral blood as assessed by tetramer technology using a chain 1 peptide (aa 32–48) – DRB1*01:01 tetramer complex in a population of HLA – DRB1*01:01 positive cat-sensitized patients with atopic dermatitis and controls gave the following results. Atopic dermatitis patients had 3–53:100.000 and controls about 3:100.000 tetramer-positive CD4 T cells in their peripheral blood (ex vivo). The majority of about 80% expressed a central memory phenotype (with high surface expression of CCR7, CD62L, CD27, and CD28) (23). Comparable results were obtained for Fel d 1-specific CD4 cells with tetramers containing six different peptides bound to six different HLA class II molecules (24). Peptide-specific CD4 cells ranged from 1:7000 to 1:300000 in allergic subjects. In subjects without allergy, tetramer-positive CD4 T cells were barely detectable. Nearly all cells exhibited a central memory phenotype, however, CCR7 expression was heterogeneous. A relevant percentage of cells were CCR4+, interpreted as a commitment to migrate to non-lymphoid sites. In comparison, in birch-allergic persons, the percentage of CD4 T cells recognizing MHC class II tetramers containing an immunodominant peptide was about 500:100.000 in allergic and 300:100.000 in non-allergic persons during the peak pollen season (25). This is more than one order of magnitude higher than for Fel d 1 in cat-allergic persons. In birch-allergic persons, the cells were mainly of an effector memory phenotype (IL-5 and some IL-10). The cells of non-allergic persons were of central memory phenotype (secreting IFN-γ and IL-10) in response to the allergen. Peptide-positive cells could not be detected directly ex vivo outside the pollen season. Their number was estimated to be at that time point 2–3 logs lower than during the peak pollen season (25). One possible explanation for this difference in peptide-specific T cells could be a smaller initial peripheral T cell repertoire against Fel d 1 due to a stronger thymic deletion of T cells recognizing epitopes of mammalian origin (phylogenetically closer to human epitopes) than T cell recognizing epitopes on molecules of plant origin. It is, however, more likely that the greater number of CD4 T cells recognizing MHC class II tetramers loaded with immunodominant pollen-derived peptides is due to the seasonal boosting of cellular immune response linked to pollen exposure.

PEPTIDES AND PEPTIDE IMMUNOTHERAPY

By T cell epitope mapping with peptides, amino acid positions 1–10 and 16–24 of Fel d 1 chain 2 were found to be associated with a HLA-DR7-restricted secretion of high IL-10, respectively IFN-γ in PBMC cultures of persons with a modified Th2 response (20). Previous work had defined Fel d 1 T cell epitopes mainly on chain 1, by means of cell proliferation assays of T cell lines established from persons allergic to cats (26). Intradermal administration of short overlapping peptides derived from chain 1 of Fel d 1 that did not cross-link IgE, did not elicit a visible early or late cutaneous response, but caused late asthmatic reactions in 9/40 cat-allergic asthmatics (27). The individual peptides were able to induce proliferation and IL-5 secretion in a HLA class II restricted manner from T cell lines established from asthmatic subjects, indicating IgE-independent, T cell-dependent allergic reaction. Determination of the binding affinities of Fel d 1 peptides to 10 commonly expressed HLA-DR molecules, combined with their proliferative and cytokine responses (IFN-γ, IL-10, and IL-13) in cat-allergic persons allowed a comprehensive identification of immune-dominant sequences including those on chain 2 (28). A short peptide immunotherapy course with a combination of promiscuous peptides (serving as restriction element to different HLA-DR molecules) improved the ocular and nasal components of rhino-conjunctivitis symptoms in subjects with cat allergy, with a treatment effect persisting 1 year after the start of treatment (29). This approach uses only short peptides (12–16 amino acids long) which are not recognized by IgE antibodies able to trigger an early asthmatic response through mediator release by basophils and mast cells. These short peptides are also not likely to be recognized by surface-bound IgM and thus interfere at the immature B cell level. Their effect is rather due to a dampening of the effector T cells for instance IL-5-secreting T cells implicated in the late allergic asthmatic response. The impact could be due to changes of the helper or regulatory cellular functions. Of course, an immune system modified by this approach at the cellular level could secondarily be susceptible to changes at the humoral level after later inhalation of Fel d 1 molecules present in the environment.

LIPOCALINS

Lipocalins represent the largest group of mammalian inhalant allergens. They are major allergens from dog, horse, cattle, guinea pig, rat, mouse, rabbit, and hamster (30). Lipocalins have a common tertiary structure composed of a central β-barrel formed of eight anti-parallel β-strands (31). Lipocalins were shown to carry small hydrophobic molecules such as retinol, steroids, odorants, and pheromones in their internal binding pocket. Despite a highly conserved structural similarity, lipocalins generally have a very low amino acid identity, which for some of them can be lower than 20% (32), a fact that makes IgE cross-reactivity among these lipocalins unlikely. Until recently, it was assumed that IgE cross-reactivity between lipocalins would be limited to isolated epitopes with great amino acid identity between lipocalins (33). However, besides lipocalins with very low amino acid identity, a group with greater homologies and IgE cross-reactivity has been individualized. It comprises the following allergens: Fel d 4 (cat), Can f 6 (dog), Equ c 1 (horse), Ory c 4 (rabbit), Mus m 1 (mouse), and Rat n 1 (rat) (Table 1). Pairwise sequence comparisons show identities in the range of 47–67% whereas other cat and dog lipocalins have only weak identities. There is also another lipocalin pair namely Fel d 7 and Can f 1 that shares 63% identity at the amino acid level and which might give rise to cross-sensitization. Concerning the main group, IgE cross-reactivity was first shown between mouse and rat urinary lipocalins using sIgE inhibition (34). Indeed at the amino acid level, there exists an identity of 64% between the major rat lipocalin Rat n 1 and mouse lipocalin Mus m 1. More recently considerable IgE cross-reactivity was shown between dog lipocalin Can f 6 and cat Fel d 4 (amino acid identity 67%) and between these lipocalins and horse lipocalin Equ c 1 (35–37). IgE cross-reactivity between Equ c 1 and Can f 6 was shown to be clinically relevant in a horse- and dog-allergic patient who showed no specific IgE to known dog allergens except Can f 6 (36). IgE reactivity of this patient to Can f 6 could be completely inhibited by Equ c 1. Can f 6 and Equ c 1 share 57% amino acid identity. Table 1 gives a summary of amino acid identity and cross-reactivity between members of the cross-reactive lipocalin group. Structural identity between Equ c 1, Fel d 4, and Can f 6 are visualized in Figure 2, structural identities between Mus m 1, Rat n 1, and Ory c 4 are shown in Figure 3.

Table 1 | Amino acid identities (%) and IgE cross-reactivity between members of a mammalian lipocalin subgroup.

FIGURE 2 | Comparison of the cross-reactive lipocalin group from horse (Equ c 1), cat (Fel d 4), and dog (Can f 6). Surface representation of Equ c 1 (1EW3) (69) colored by sequence conservation with Fel d 4 (Q5VFH6) (70), Can f 6 (H2B3G5) (35).

FIGURE 3 | Comparison of the cross-reactive lipocalin group from rat (Rat n 1), mouse (Mus m 1), and rabbit (Ory c 4). Surface representation of Rat n 1 (1MUP) (71) colored by sequence conservation with Ory c 4 (U6C8D6) (72) and Mus m 1 (P02762) (73).

EXPOSURE AND EFFECT ON THE HUMORAL IMMUNE RESPONSE

Lipocalins are shed into the environment by animal dander and secretions. Dog allergen Can f 1 is ubiquitously present in human residential environment. The most probable mechanism of allergen transfer to public places is clothing (1). Lipocalins are found both in airborne and settled dust. Although Fel d 1 and Can f 1 belong to different protein families, a number of studies have shown that allergen levels found in airborne or settled dust are in the same range of magnitude for both molecules (38).

The importance of mouse allergens was initially demonstrated in the occupational setting (39). However, the role of mouse allergen exposure in domestic environments has also gained attention. Mus m 1, the major mouse allergen, is prevalent in US urban and suburban residential environments. It has been shown to be related to asthma morbidity (40–42). Importantly, airborne and settled dust mouse allergen levels were shown to vary over time in a given home, implying that environmental conditions of sensitized patients may change from high to low exposure and vice versa. Conditions of high exposure reached values up to 5.68 ng/m^3, which are comparable to measurements obtained in animal facilities.

The effect of allergen concentration on the immune response has been addressed in a prospective study analyzing the immune response of newly hired employes of a mouse facility over time. The concentrations of Mus m 1 in the air ranged from 0.09 to 9.88 ng/m^3, the median of the allergen concentrations over time being 0.69 ng/m^3. By 24 months, 23% of the participants had developed a positive SPT. Interestingly, the risk of becoming positive was not linear, increasing from low to moderate levels of exposure, peaking at approximately 1.2 ng/m^3, and then decreasing from moderate to high levels of exposure (43). Eight percent had developed mouse-specific IgG4, the incidence increasing with increasing levels of mouse allergen exposure. Ten percent of the participants had developed mouse-specific IgG1–3 with a non-significant association with higher exposure. A previous cross-sectional occupational study had shown that high exposure to rats was associated with lower rates of symptoms and specific IgE to rat urine allergen (containing Rat n 1) but an increased frequency of highly specific IgG and IgG4 (44).

A recent study addressing specific IgE, IgG1, IgG4 levels and the peripheral blood mononuclear cytokine responses to eight separate cat allergens in cat-allergic and in cat non-allergic persons showed IgG4 antibodies to Fel d 4 in 12% of allergic persons and in only 3% of non-allergic persons (17). Although IgG1 antibodies to Fel d 1 were found in allergic and non-allergic persons, there were none detected against Fel d 4. Another recent study analyzing on a microarray system of IgE and IgG antibodies to a series of dog, cat, and horse allergens showed that almost all the patients but also controls had IgG antibodies to the cross-reacting lipocalin group (Fel d 4, Can f 6, and Equ c 1) (45).

T CELL RESPONSES TO LIPOCALIN ALLERGENS

Rat n 1 allergen purified from rat urine and pools of overlapping peptides spanning Rat n 1 were tested for the proliferative responses of PBMCs of rat-allergic individuals, rat-exposed but non-allergic individuals and non-exposed, non-allergic individuals (46). The proliferative responses to Rat n 1 of the three groups were similar and weak with a median stimulation index below 2 (but with an extremely great range between 0.01 and 22.2). Nevertheless, four peptide pools induced with high frequency weak positive responses in allergic individuals in comparison to non-allergic referents (46). Interestingly, the levels of IL-5 were significantly increased in supernatants of PBMCs stimulated with rat urinary protein from allergic subjects, compared to non-allergic control subjects and even more so when compared to non-exposed controls when stimulated with rat urinary protein. Four similar epitope areas had previously been defined in the cow dander allergen Bos d 2 in cow-asthmatic individuals (47). Here also, the proliferative response of PBMCs to native Bos d 2 had been weak and the four epitopes concentrated on the conserved regions of the molecule had been most clearly defined by the proliferative response of a number of T cell clones established from five cow-allergic patients. According to their cytokine-producing pattern, 37% of the clones were classified as Th0-like (IL-5, IL-4, IFN-γ), 7.9% were Th1-like (IFN-γ), and 55% were Th2-like (IL-4, IL-5). Using HLA class II-peptide tetramer technology, naïve Bos d 2-specific T cells of PBMC cultures of individuals with or without allergy were of similar frequency, whereas the frequency of CD4+, CD45RO+ memory cells appeared to be higher in subjects with allergy (48). These findings were confirmed by a recent study on the CD4 T cell response to Equ c 1, the major horse lipocalin allergen (49). Allergic and non-allergic subjects had a similar low frequency of Equ c 1-specific CD4 T cells, but the cells from the allergic subjects had a stronger proliferative response, were predominantly Th2 biased and originated mostly from memory CD4 T cells.

T cell epitopes have also been mapped for the major allergens of dog and horse, Can f 1 and Equ c 1, respectively (50, 51). Seven epitope regions were defined for Can f 1 and on average, patients recognized three epitopes. T cell lines from allergic patients produced more IL-4 than those from healthy controls. However, depending on the peptide used, they produced also more IL-10 or more IFN-γ (52). A comparison of Can f 1-specific T cell lines generated from dog-allergic and non-allergic but exposed persons showed an absence of IL-4 secreting T cell lines in non-allergic persons, while IL-5, IL-10, IFN-γ, and IL-17 lines were found in both groups although at different frequencies (53). Specific T cell lines established from 10 horse-allergic patients determined 8 epitope regions and 1 dominant epitope in the C-terminal region of Equ c 1 (51). Similarly to the findings on Rat n 1 and Bos d 2, epitopes are clustered in a few regions and they elicit only weak T cell responses in PBMCs which are enhanced in the T cell lines obtained after several stimulation cycles (51).

SERUM ALBUMINS

Serum albumins represent the major protein component in the circulatory system of mammals. They are produced by hepatocytes and have a molecular weight in the range of 66–69 kDa. They contribute significantly to colloid osmotic blood pressure and aid in the transport of many endogenous and exogenous ligands. The albumin molecule is very flexible, it has an α-helical structure stabilized by several disulfide bridges and is divided into three domains (54). Serum albumins are also present in body fluids and on dander. In house dust samples, concentrations of human serum albumin (HSA) have been measured in the range of 40–301 μg/g dust (55). Again, this is the range of the settled dust amounts measured for Fel d 1 and Can f 1, two molecules representative of a different allergen family. There are no commercial tools available up to date for the specific measurement of animal albumins in dust samples.

IMMUNE RESPONSE TO SERUM ALBUMINS

The immune response to serum albumins is well-documented at the antibody level, however, there are few data on the cellular response to serum albumins. Specific IgE to dog serum albumin (DSA) were first described in dog dander asthmatic children who were prick test positive to DSA (9 out of 80) (56). The titers of anti-DSA IgG measured did not correlate with specific IgE titers. Lymphocyte transformation tests in anti-DSA IgE-positive patients were weak except for one patient. In subsequent reports, the importance of DSA as a cross-reactive allergen was established. In a study with 110 dog-allergic patients, 35% were shown to have IgE against DSA (57). IgE antibodies from several selected patients bound also to albumins from other species such as cat, mouse, and rat. Histamine release with the different albumins was shown for one patient. A more extensive analysis of cross-reactivity was performed on a sample of 200 patients allergic to animal dander (58). Thirty percent of these patients presented IgE reactivity to albumins in animal hair/dander extracts and were further tested in dot-blot experiments for cross-reactivity with 11 different mammalian albumins. The majority of the patients’ IgE recognized a large spectrum of albumins; some, however, displayed a highly selective reactivity.

IgE CROSS-REACTIVITY BETWEEN INHALED AND INGESTED OR SYSTEMICALLY ADMINISTERED SERUM ALBUMINS

Despite their high level of cross-reactivity, albumins were considered minor allergens without documented clinical significance. This was challenged by a case report of a severe anaphylactic reaction after artificial insemination in a patient sensitized to animal dander (59). Bovine serum albumin (BSA), a compound of the medium used, could be identified as trigger for the reaction. A first report on cat-allergic patients experiencing anaphylactic reactions upon consumption of pork meat coined the term pork–cat syndrome (60). Another study investigated the role of serum albumin in this syndrome. The sensitization of cat-allergic patients to cat serum albumin was analyzed and possible cross-sensitization profiles to pork albumin were determined by inhibition assays (61). The frequency of sensitization to cat albumin ranged between 14 and 23%, depending on the cohort, while sensitization to porcine serum albumin ranged from 3 to 10%, respectively. About 1/3 of the patients sensitized to porcine serum albumin are likely to experience adverse reaction by the consumption of pork, especially ham or sausages, as albumins are heat-labile proteins. Statistically, about 1–3% of cat-allergic patients would be at risk for adverse reactions to pork (61). The described cases all originated from Europe, but recently several cases with immediate type allergic reactions upon pork consumption have been reported in the US (62). Testing for serum IgE to cat and pork serum albumin allows discriminating this syndrome from the reactions of delayed food allergy related to the presence of IgE directed to alpha-gal sugar determinants on meat (63). The high level of IgE cross-reactivity between serum albumins hampers the determination of the sensitizing molecule. The clinical history of sensitization, the level of specific anti-albumin IgE titers as well as IgE inhibition data have to be taken into account to establish a correct diagnosis. Although IgE cross-reactivity is most frequent between mammalian albumins, cross-reactivity may also occur between cat and chicken albumin which share only 46% identical amino acids (64). BSA is an important allergen of meat and milk. IgG and IgA responses to BSA and different fragments thereof have been analyzed in three cohorts: unselected persons, new-onset insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus patients, and atopic patients (65). IgG and IgA antibodies to BSA were inversely correlated with age in the normal population. In all three cohorts, IgG antibodies recognized all three BSA domains with an equivalent frequency, however, only 31–46% of the subjects’ IgA antibodies were able to bind to the N-terminal part of the BSA molecule. This finding correlated with the fact that the N-terminal domain was also the first to be degraded in simulated gastric fluid experiments, suggesting that systemic IgG antibody responses and gut-associated lymphoid tissue IgA responses to the food allergen are independent.

Mammalian serum albumins display a very high amino acid identity (72–82%) to HSA (66). This leaves very little space for the discrimination of self from non-self. It is interesting to note that up to now no clear autoimmune reaction to HSA has been proven. The role of the so-called ABBOS peptide, an epitope present on the BSA molecule, has been controversially discussed in the development of insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (67).

It has been hypothesized that, at least for food allergens, molecules with a high degree of similarity to human homologs would be poorly immunogenic (68). Above a threshold of 62% sequence identity, proteins were found to be rarely allergenic. BSA, an allergen of cow’s milk is an exception as it shares 75.6% identity with HSA. The respiratory allergenic albumins present even identities of 81.7% (cat), 79.8% (dog), and 76.1% (horse) to HSA. The structural features of mammalian and avian serum albumins have been addressed in a recent review by Chruszcz et al. (66). Their three-dimensional structure is crucial for antibody binding and allergenicity. Albumins are sensitive to heat treatment and thoroughly cooked food is generally tolerated by allergic patients.

CONCLUSION

Inhalant mammalian allergens are capable of eliciting a large variety of immune responses, of which production of specific IgE is only one. At the humoral level, a particular aspect is the high IgE cross-reactivity mainly within the serum albumins but also a cross-reactive lipocalin group. At the T cell level, the overall proliferative response to mammalian allergens is rather low, with nevertheless important variations. Allergen-specific CD4 T cells in peripheral blood of allergic persons are slightly more frequent than in non-allergic persons and predominantly have a Th2 central memory profile. The studies with Fel d 1 peptides have clearly established the existence of an effector cellular immune response, which has a pathogenic potential which is independent of the humoral IgE response. High allergen exposure, whether natural or immunotherapy-induced, is correlated to clinical benefit in parallel to the production of high titers of allergen-specific IgG4. A causal relationship between the two observations needs still to be proven. The issue of an autonomous immunogenicity and allergenicity of mammalian allergens is still elusive, the possibility of an allergenic bystander effect of other inhaled particles with adjuvant properties is a realistic option. At last, mammalian allergens, especially those whose amino acid sequence is close to that of their human homologs, are unique tools to study the immune response at the frontier between self and non-self.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Funding sources: the project was supported by the Ministry of Higher Education and Research of Luxembourg.

REFERENCES

1. Salo PM, Sever ML, Zeldin DC. Indoor allergens in school and day care environments. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2009) 124(2):185–92. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2009.05.012

2. Heinzerling LM, Burbach GJ, Edenharter G, Bachert C, Bindslev-Jensen C, Bonini S, et al. GA(2)LEN skin test study I: GA(2)LEN harmonization of skin prick testing: novel sensitization patterns for inhalant allergens in Europe. Allergy (2009) 64(10):1498–506. doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.2009.02093.x

3. Hammad H, Chieppa M, Perros F, Willart MA, Germain RN, Lambrecht BN. House dust mite allergen induces asthma via toll-like receptor 4 triggering of airway structural cells. Nat Med (2009) 15(4):410–6. doi:10.1038/nm.1946

4. Lambrecht BN, Hammad H. The airway epithelium in asthma. Nat Med (2012) 18(5):684–92. doi:10.1038/nm.2737

5. Herre J, Gronlund H, Brooks H, Hopkins L, Waggoner L, Murton B, et al. Allergens as immunomodulatory proteins: the cat dander protein Fel d 1 enhances TLR activation by lipid ligands. J Immunol (2013) 191(4):1529–35. doi:10.4049/jimmunol.1300284

6. Duffort OA, Carreira J, Nitti G, Polo F, Lombardero M. Studies on the biochemical structure of the major cat allergen Felis domesticus I. Mol Immunol (1991) 28(4–5):301–9. doi:10.1016/0161-5890(91)90141-6

7. Kaiser L, Velickovic TC, Badia-Martinez D, Adedoyin J, Thunberg S, Hallen D, et al. Structural characterization of the tetrameric form of the major cat allergen Fel d 1. J Mol Biol (2007) 370(4):714–27. doi:10.1016/j.jmb.2007.04.074

8. Kristensen AK, Schou C, Roepstorff P. Determination of isoforms, N-linked glycan structure and disulfide bond linkages of the major cat allergen Fel d1 by a mass spectrometric approach. Biol Chem (1997) 378(8):899–908.

9. Hilger C, Kler S, Arumugam K, Revets D, Muller CP, Charpentier C, et al. Identification and isolation of a Fel d 1-like molecule as a major rabbit allergen. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2014) 133(3):759–66. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2013.04.034

10. Landau M, Mayrose I, Rosenberg Y, Glaser F, Martz E, Pupko T, et al. ConSurf 2005: the projection of evolutionary conservation scores of residues on protein structures. Nucleic Acids Res (2005) 33:W299–302. doi:10.1093/nar/gki370

11. Available from: www.fediaf.org; www.americanpetproducts.org.

12. Bollinger ME, Eggleston PA, Flanagan E, Wood RA. Cat antigen in homes with and without cats may induce allergic symptoms. J Allergy Clin Immunol (1996) 97(4):907–14. doi:10.1016/S0091-6749(96)80064-9

13. Custis NJ, Woodfolk JA, Vaughan JW, Platts-Mills TA. Quantitative measurement of airborne allergens from dust mites, dogs, and cats using an ion-charging device. Clin Exp Allergy (2003) 33(7):986–91. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2222.2003.01706.x

14. Platts-Mills TA, Woodfolk JA. Allergens and their role in the allergic immune response. Immunol Rev (2011) 242(1):51–68. doi:10.1111/j.1600-065X.2011.01021.x

15. Arshad SH, Tariq SM, Matthews S, Hakim E. Sensitization to common allergens and its association with allergic disorders at age 4 years: a whole population birth cohort study. Pediatrics (2001) 108(2):E33. doi:10.1542/peds.108.2.e33

16. Simpson BM, Custovic A, Simpson A, Hallam CL, Walsh D, Marolia H, et al. NAC Manchester Asthma and Allergy Study (NACMAAS): risk factors for asthma and allergic disorders in adults. Clin Exp Allergy (2001) 31(3):391–9. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2222.2001.01050.x

17. Hales BJ, Chai LY, Hazell L, Elliot CE, Stone S, O’Neil SE, et al. IgE and IgG binding patterns and T-cell recognition of Fel d 1 and Non–Fel d 1 cat allergens. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract (2013) 1(6):656–65. doi:10.1016/j.jaip.2013.08.008

18. Hesselmar B, Aberg N, Aberg B, Eriksson B, Bjorksten B. Does early exposure to cat or dog protect against later allergy development? Clin Exp Allergy (1999) 29(5):611–7. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2222.1999.00534.x

19. Platts-Mills TA, Vaughan JW, Blumenthal K, Woodfolk JA, Sporik RB. Decreased prevalence of asthma among children with high exposure to cat allergen: relevance of the modified Th2 response. Mediators Inflamm (2001) 10(6):288–91. doi:10.1080/09629350152700902

20. Reefer AJ, Carneiro RM, Custis NJ, Platts-Mills TA, Sung SS, Hammer J, et al. A role for IL-10-mediated HLA-DR7-restricted T cell-dependent events in development of the modified Th2 response to cat allergen. J Immunol (2004) 172(5):2763–72.

21. Custovic A, Soderstrom L, Ahlstedt S, Sly PD, Simpson A, Holt PG. Allergen-specific IgG antibody levels modify the relationship between allergen-specific IgE and wheezing in childhood. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2011) 127(6):1480–5. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2011.03.014

22. Senti G, Crameri R, Kuster D, Johansen P, Martinez-Gomez JM, Graf N, et al. Intralymphatic immunotherapy for cat allergy induces tolerance after only 3 injections. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2012) 129(5):1290–6. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2012.02.026

23. Bateman EA, Ardern-Jones MR, Ogg GS. Persistent central memory phenotype of circulating Fel d 1 peptide/DRB1*0101 tetramer-binding CD4+ T cells. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2006) 118(6):1350–6. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2006.07.040

24. Kwok WW, Roti M, Delong JH, Tan V, Wambre E, James EA, et al. Direct ex vivo analysis of allergen-specific CD4+ T cells. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2010) 125(6):1407–9. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2010.03.037

25. Van Overtvelt L, Wambre E, Maillere B, von Hofe E, Louise A, Balazuc AM, et al. Assessment of Bet v 1-specific CD4+ T cell responses in allergic and nonallergic individuals using MHC class II peptide tetramers. J Immunol (2008) 180(7):4514–22.

26. Counsell CM, Bond JF, Ohman JL Jr, Greenstein JL, Garman RD. Definition of the human T-cell epitopes of Fel d 1, the major allergen of the domestic cat. J Allergy Clin Immunol (1996) 98:884–94. doi:10.1016/S0091-6749(96)80004-2

27. Haselden BM, Kay AB, Larche M. Immunoglobulin E-independent major histocompatibility complex-restricted T cell peptide epitope-induced late asthmatic reactions. J Exp Med (1999) 189(12):1885–94. doi:10.1084/jem.189.12.1885

28. Worm M, Lee HH, Kleine-Tebbe J, Hafner RP, Laidler P, Healey D, et al. Development and preliminary clinical evaluation of a peptide immunotherapy vaccine for cat allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2011) 127(1):89–97. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2010.11.029

29. Patel D, Couroux P, Hickey P, Salapatek AM, Laidler P, Larche M, et al. Fel d 1-derived peptide antigen desensitization shows a persistent treatment effect 1 year after the start of dosing: a randomized, placebo-controlled study. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2013) 131(1):103–9. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2012.07.028

30. Hilger C, Kuehn A, Hentges F. Animal lipocalin allergens. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep (2012) 12(5):438–47. doi:10.1007/s11882-012-0283-2

31. Flower DR. The lipocalin protein family: structure and function. Biochem J (1996) 318(Pt 1):1–14.

32. Flower DR, North ACT, Sansom CE. The lipocalin protein family: structural and sequence overview. Biochim Biophys Acta (2000) 1482(1–2):9–24. doi:10.1016/S0167-4838(00)00148-5

33. Saarelainen S, Rytkonen-Nissinen M, Rouvinen J, Taivainen A, Auriola S, Kauppinen A, et al. Animal-derived lipocalin allergens exhibit immunoglobulin E cross-reactivity. Clin Exp Allergy (2008) 38(2):374–81. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2222.2007.02895.x

34. Jeal H, Harris J, Draper A, Taylor AN, Cullinan P, Jones M. Dual sensitization to rat and mouse urinary allergens reflects cross-reactive molecules rather than atopy. Allergy (2009) 64(6):855–61. doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.2008.01899.x

35. Hilger C, Swiontek K, Arumugam K, Lehners C, Hentges F. Identification of a new major dog allergen highly cross-reactive with Fel d 4 in a population of cat- and dog-sensitized patients. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2012) 129(4):1149–51. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2011.10.017

36. Jakob T, Hilger C, Hentges F. Clinical relevance of sensitization to cross-reactive lipocalin Can f 6. Allergy (2013) 68(5):690–1. doi:10.1111/all.12107

37. Nilsson OB, Binnmyr J, Zoltowska A, Saarne T, van Hage M, Gronlund H. Characterization of the dog lipocalin allergen Can f 6: the role in cross-reactivity with cat and horse. Allergy (2012) 67(6):751–7. doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.2012.02826.x

38. Zahradnik E, Raulf M. Animal allergens and their presence in the environment. Front Immunol (2014) 5:76. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2014.00076

39. Bush RK. Mechanism and epidemiology of laboratory animal allergy. ILAR J (2001) 42(1):4–11. doi:10.1093/ilar.42.1.4

40. Ahluwalia SK, Peng RD, Breysse PN, Diette GB, Curtin-Brosnan J, Aloe C, et al. Mouse allergen is the major allergen of public health relevance in Baltimore City. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2013) 132(4):830–5. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2013.05.005

41. Phipatanakul W, Eggleston PA, Wright EC, Wood RA, National Coooperative Inner-City Asthma Study. Mouse allergen. II. The relationship of mouse allergen exposure to mouse sensitization and asthma morbidity in inner-city children with asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2000) 106(6):1075–80. doi:10.1067/mai.2000.110795

42. Phipatanakul W, Litonjua AA, Platts-Mills TA, Naccara LM, Celedon JC, Abdulkerim H, et al. Sensitization to mouse allergen and asthma and asthma morbidity among women in Boston. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2007) 120(4):954–6. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2007.05.010

43. Peng RD, Paigen B, Eggleston PA, Hagberg KA, Krevans M, Curtin-Brosnan J, et al. Both the variability and level of mouse allergen exposure influence the phenotype of the immune response in workers at a mouse facility. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2011) 128(2):390–6. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2011.04.050

44. Jeal H, Draper A, Harris J, Taylor AN, Cullinan P, Jones M. Modified Th2 responses at high-dose exposures to allergen: using an occupational model. Am J Respir Crit Care Med (2006) 174(1):21–5. doi:10.1164/rccm.200506-964OC

45. Curin M, Swoboda I, Wollmann E, Lupinek C, Spitzauer S, van Hage M, et al. Microarrayed dog, cat, and horse allergens show weak correlation between allergen-specific IgE and IgG responses. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2014) 133(3):918–21.e6. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2013.10.058

46. Jeal H, Draper A, Harris J, Taylor AN, Cullinan P, Jones M. Determination of the T cell epitopes of the lipocalin allergen, Rat n 1. Clin Exp Allergy (2004) 34(12):1919–25. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2222.2004.02126.x

47. Zeiler T, Mantyjarvi R, Rautiainen J, Rytkonen-Nissinen M, Vilja P, Taivainen A, et al. T cell epitopes of a lipocalin allergen colocalize with the conserved regions of the molecule. J Immunol (1999) 162(3):1415–22.

48. Kinnunen T, Nieminen A, Kwok WW, Narvanen A, Rytkonen-Nissinen M, Saarelainen S, et al. Allergen-specific naive and memory CD4+ T cells exhibit functional and phenotypic differences between individuals with or without allergy. Eur J Immunol (2010) 40(9):2460–9. doi:10.1002/eji.201040328

49. Kailaanmaki A, Kinnunen T, Kwok WW, Rytkonen-Nissinen M, Randell J, Virtanen T. Differential CD4(+) T-cell responses of allergic and non-allergic subjects to the immunodominant epitope region of the horse major allergen Equ c 1. Immunology (2014) 141(1):52–60. doi:10.1111/imm.12166

50. Immonen A, Farci S, Taivainen A, Partanen J, Pouvelle-Moratille S, Narvanen A, et al. T cell epitope-containing peptides of the major dog allergen Can f 1 as candidates for allergen immunotherapy. J Immunol (2005) 175(6):3614–20.

51. Immonen A, Kinnunen T, Sirven P, Taivainen A, Houitte D, Perasaari J, et al. The major horse allergen Equ c 1 contains one immunodominant region of T cell epitopes. Clin Exp Allergy (2007) 37(6):939–47. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2222.2007.02722.x

52. Immonen AK, Taivainen AH, Narvanen AT, Kinnunen TT, Saarelainen SA, Rytkonen-Nissinen MA, et al. Use of multiple peptides containing T cell epitopes is a feasible approach for peptide-based immunotherapy in Can f 1 allergy. Immunology (2007) 120(1):38–46. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2567.2006.02475.x

53. Parviainen S, Taivainen A, Liukko A, Nieminen A, Rytkonen-Nissinen M, Kinnunen T, et al. Comparison of the allergic and nonallergic CD4+ T-cell responses to the major dog allergen Can f 1. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2010) 126(2):406–8. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2010.06.005

54. Majorek KA, Porebski PJ, Dayal A, Zimmerman MD, Jablonska K, Stewart AJ, et al. Structural and immunologic characterization of bovine, horse, and rabbit serum albumins. Mol Immunol (2012) 52(3–4):174–82. doi:10.1016/j.molimm.2012.05.011

55. Witteman AM, van Leeuwen J, Perdok GJ, van der Zee JS, Stapel SO, Aalberse RC. Human proteins in house dust. Allergy (1993) 48(5):383–4. doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.1993.tb02411.x

56. Vanto T, Viander M, Schwartz B. Dog serum albumin as an allergen. IgE, IgG and lymphocyte responses in dog dander-sensitive asthmatic children. Int Arch Allergy Appl Immunol (1982) 69(4):311–5. doi:10.1159/000233192

57. Spitzauer S, Schweiger C, Sperr WR, Pandjaitan B, Valent P, Muhl S, et al. Molecular characterization of dog albumin as a cross-reactive allergen. J Allergy Clin Immunol (1994) 93(3):614–27. doi:10.1016/S0091-6749(94)70073-7

58. Spitzauer S, Pandjaitan B, Soregi G, Muhl S, Ebner C, Kraft D, et al. IgE cross-reactivities against albumins in patients allergic to animals. J Allergy Clin Immunol (1995) 96:951–9. doi:10.1016/S0091-6749(95)70233-4

59. Wuthrich B, Stern A, Johansson SG. Severe anaphylactic reaction to bovine serum albumin at the first attempt of artificial insemination. Allergy (1995) 50(2):179–83. doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.1995.tb05077.x

60. Sabbah A, Lauret MG, Chene J, Boutet S, Drouet M. The pork-cat syndrome or crossed allergy between pork meat and cat epithelia (2). Allerg Immunol (1994) 26(5):173–4.

61. Hilger C, Kohnen M, Grigioni F, Lehners C, Hentges F. Allergic cross-reactions between cat and pig serum albumin. Study at the protein and DNA levels. Allergy (1997) 52(2):179–87. doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.1997.tb00972.x

62. Posthumus J, James HR, Lane CJ, Matos LA, Platts-Mills TA, Commins SP. Initial description of pork-cat syndrome in the United States. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2013) 131(3):923–5. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2012.12.665

63. Commins SP, Satinover SM, Hosen J, Mozena J, Borish L, Lewis BD, et al. Delayed anaphylaxis, angioedema, or urticaria after consumption of red meat in patients with IgE antibodies specific for galactose-alpha-1,3-galactose. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2009) 123(2):426–33. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2008.10.052

64. Hilger C, Swiontek K, Hentges F, Donnay C, de Blay F, Pauli G. Occupational inhalant allergy to pork followed by food allergy to pork and chicken: sensitization to hemoglobin and serum albumin. Int Arch Allergy Immunol (2010) 151(2):173–8. doi:10.1159/000236008

65. Hilger C, Grigioni F, De Beaufort C, Michel G, Freilinger J, Hentges F. Differential binding of IgG and IgA antibodies to antigenic determinants of bovine serum albumin. Clin Exp Immunol (2001) 123(3):387–94. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2249.2001.01451.x

66. Chruszcz M, Mikolajczak K, Mank N, Majorek KA, Porebski PJ, Minor W. Serum albumins-unusual allergens. Biochim Biophys Acta (2013) 1830(12):5375–81. doi:10.1016/j.bbagen.2013.06.016

67. Persaud DR, Barranco-Mendoza A. Bovine serum albumin and insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus; is cow’s milk still a possible toxicological causative agent of diabetes? Food Chem Toxicol (2004) 42(5):707–14. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2004.01.002

68. Jenkins JA, Breiteneder H, Mills EN. Evolutionary distance from human homologs reflects allergenicity of animal food proteins. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2007) 120(6):1399–405. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2007.08.019

69. Gregoire C, Rosinski-Chupin I, Rabillon J, Alzari PM, David B, Dandeu JP. cDNA cloning and sequencing reveal the major horse allergen Equ c1 to be a glycoprotein member of the lipocalin superfamily. J Biol Chem (1996) 271(51):32951–9. doi:10.1074/jbc.271.51.32951

70. Smith W, Butler AJ, Hazell LA, Chapman MD, Pomes A, Nickels DG, et al. Fel d 4, a cat lipocalin allergen. Clin Exp Allergy (2004) 34(11):1732–8. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2222.2004.02090.x

71. Bayard C, Holmquist L, Vesterberg O. Purification and identification of allergenic alpha (2u)-globulin species of rat urine. Biochim Biophys Acta (1996) 1290(2):129–34. doi:10.1016/0304-4165(96)00006-2

72. Hilger C, Kler S, Hentges F. Reply: to PMID 24369805. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2014) 133(1):284–5. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2013.10.027

73. Böcskei Z, Groom CR, Flower DR, Wright CE, Phillips SE, Cavaggioni A, et al. Pheromone binding to two rodent urinary proteins revealed by X-ray crystallography. Nature (1992) 360(6400):186–8. doi:10.1038/360186a0

Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Received: 07 February 2014; accepted: 06 May 2014; published online: 21 May 2014.

Citation: Hentges F, Léonard C, Arumugam K and Hilger C (2014) Immune responses to inhalant mammalian allergens. Front. Immunol. 5:234. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2014.00234

This article was submitted to Immunotherapies and Vaccines, a section of the journal Frontiers in Immunology.

Copyright © 2014 Hentges, Léonard, Arumugam and Hilger. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

MINI REVIEW ARTICLE
published: 31 March 2014
doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2014.00138

Orchestration of an uncommon maturation cascade of the house dust mite protease allergen quartet

Marie-Eve Dumez1,2, Julie Herman[2], Vincenzo Campizi1,2, Moreno Galleni[2], Alain Jacquet[3] and Andy Chevigné[1]*

1 Laboratory of Retrovirology, Department of Infection and Immunity, Centre de Recherche Public Santé, Luxembourg, Luxembourg

2 Macromolécules Biologiques, Department of Life Sciences, Centre for Protein Engineering, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium

3 Faculty of Medicine, Department of Medicine, Division of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand

Edited by:

Christiane Hilger, Centre de Recherche Public Santé, Luxembourg

Reviewed by:

Beatrice Jahn-Schmid, Medical University of Vienna, Austria
Enrique Fernandez-Caldas, Inmunotek, Spain

*Correspondence:

Andy Chevigné, Laboratory of Retrovirology, Centre de Recherche Public Santé, 84 Val Fleuri, Luxembourg L-1526, Luxembourg
e-mail: andy.chevigne@crp-sante.lu

In more than 20% of the world population, sensitization to house dust mite allergens triggers typical allergic diseases such as allergic rhinitis and asthma. Amongst the 23 mite allergen groups hitherto identified, group 1 is cysteine proteases belonging to the papain-like family whereas groups 3, 6, and 9 are serine proteases displaying trypsin, chymotrypsin, and collagenolytic activities, respectively. While these proteases are more likely to be involved in the mite digestive system, they also play critical roles in the initiation and in the chronicity of the allergic response notably through the activation of innate immune pathways. All these allergenic proteases are expressed in mite as inactive precursor form. Until recently, the exact mechanisms of their maturation into active proteases remained to be fully elucidated. Recent breakthroughs in the understanding of the activation mechanisms of mite allergenic protease precursors have highlighted an uncommon and unique maturation pathway orchestrated by group 1 proteases that tightly regulates the proteolytic activities of groups 1, 3, 6, and 9 through complex intra- or inter-molecular mechanisms. This review presents and discusses the currently available knowledge of the activation mechanisms of group 1, 3, 6, and 9 allergens of Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus laying special emphasis on their localization, regulation, and interconnection.

Keywords: mite, proteases, Der p 1, allergen, activation cascade, localization, interaction

INTRODUCTION

House dust mites (HDMs; Dermatophagoides spp.) are common reservoirs of potent airborne allergens, which induce Th2-biased inflammatory diseases such as allergic asthma, perennial rhinitis as well as atopic dermatitis in sensitized patients (1). To date, over 23 different HDM allergen groups inducing the production of allergen-specific IgE in humans have been referenced (2).

A growing amount of literature suggests that HDM allergens can stimulate numerous innate immune activation pathways to initiate the Th2 allergic response (3). Although HDM allergens can induce lung inflammation by protease-independent mechanisms, the proteolytic activities of HDM allergens trigger key innate signaling to initiate the allergic response through, among others, the disruption of the airway/skin epithelial barrier, the protease-activated receptor-2 (PAR-2) activation, and other cell-surface receptor cleavages (3–5). These proteolytic attacks facilitate the uptake of the allergens by dendritic cells (DCs) in subepithelial tissues and lead to the release of numerous proinflammatory (IL-6, IL-8, and IL-1β) as well as innate Th2 (IL-25, IL-33, and TSLP) cytokines from the target cells. While the crystal structure of Der p 1 demonstrated that this allergen is a papain-like cysteine protease, sequence homologies, and protease inhibition assays proved that Der p 3, Der p 6, and Der p 9 belong to the trypsin-like, chymotrypsin-like, and collagenolytic-like serine protease families, respectively (6). Although the biological roles of these proteases in mites have not hitherto been completely unraveled, these allergens could more probably play a digestive function for the mite as they were detected in the gut as well as in mite feces. The four HDM allergen proteases are all synthesized as pre-zymogens formed by a signal peptide essential for the secretion, an N-terminal propeptide followed by the mature protease domain. Each corresponding prosequence inhibits the respective protease to prevent cellular toxicity during their expression. Considering the critical role of proteolytically active HDM allergens in the initiation of the allergic response, the elucidation of the pathways for the maturation of these allergens offers opportunities to deeply characterize their proteolytic specificities allowing the identification of their corresponding protein substrates on the target innate and adaptive immune cells.

The present minireview will update the information about the inter- and intra-molecular maturation mechanisms of the protease allergens from Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus with special emphasis on particular features of propeptides and protease interactions. We will highlight that the HDM protease quartet processing follows an uncommon and interconnected maturation pathway, which is uniquely orchestrated by Der p 1.

THE MATURATION OF ALLERGEN PROTEASES FROM DERMATOPHAGOIDES PTERONYSSINUS

proDer p 1

Mite cysteine protease Der p 1 (group 1) belongs to the papain-like protease family (CA1) and is considered one of the most potent HDM allergens on the basis of the high frequency (70–100%) of specific IgE in HDM allergic patients (7, 8) as well as of its capacity to proteotically trigger innate immune activation (3). Through the removal of its signal peptide (18 residues), Der p 1 is secreted as an inactive zymogen, proDer p 1, composed of a catalytic domain of 222 residues and an N-terminal propeptide of 80 residues, which acts as an internal chaperone during protease folding and then locks the protease active site (9, 10). The crystallographic structure of proDer p 1 revealed that the propeptide of Der p 1 adopts a unique fold within the CA1 protease family (10). The propeptide of Der p 1 notably displays an intermediate size (80 residues) and is devoid of the canonical ERFNIN motif in its N-terminal globular domain (Table 1). The propeptide of Der p 1 is also characterized by the presence of an additional fourth α-helix replacing the unstructured C-terminal tail normally found in the other propeptide subfamilies (60 or 100 residues).

Table 1 | Propeptides of Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus proteases.

In vitro activation of proDer p 1 produced by the yeast Pichia pastoris or by S2 insect cells was shown to be induced under acidic conditions (i.e., pH 4) (11–14). Biophysical studies demonstrated that under acidic conditions, the propeptide of Der p 1 partly unfolds, leading to a considerable increase in the solvent accessibility and flexibility of the residues located in the N-terminal globular domain. Under these conditions, the propeptide loses its inhibitory ability and becomes a substrate for Der p 1 and most probably for other mite allergen proteases (11, 15–17). In vitro, the auto-activation of proDer p 1 at pH 4 leads to the formation of intermediates, which correspond to the successive loss of the first and second N-terminal α-helices following cleavages at the -NKSY_19-A_20TFE- and -KYVQ_40-S_41NGG- sites, respectively, considering the first residue of the zymogen as residue 1 (11, 13, 18) (Table 1). Generation of fully active Der p 1 with or without two additional residues (AE_80) is then achieved through a final cleave at overlapping cleavage sites (-FDLN_78-A_79ETN- or -LNAE_80-T_81NAC-) located at the propeptide C-terminus (11, 13, 18–20). It is noteworthy that these cleavages take place in propeptide regions that correspond to solvent exposed coil connecting the different α-helices and at sequences corresponding to Der p 1 proteolytic specificity (21). Activation of proDer p 1 was also shown to occur through inter-molecular cleavages of the precursor by active Der p 1 protease (14, 15). The proDer p 1 sequence contains two N-glycosylation sites, one within the propeptide (-N_16KS-) and one within the catalytic domain (-N_132QS-) the latter being glycosylated in the recombinant and natural forms of Der p 1 (11, 13, 14, 22, 23). Surprisingly, while pH is the major factor triggering proDerp 1 maturation, the glycosylation of the Der p 1 propeptide by the yeast P. pastoris at Asn16, which is N-terminally located to the -N_16KSY_19-A_20TFE- cleavage site, was shown to decelerate the activation rate of the zymogen (11, 24). Although the glycosylation pattern of the Der p 1 precursor in mites is most probably different, one cannot rule out that such interference might also be observed in mites and could consequently constitute a regulation system for allergen maturation.

proDer p 3

Based on the high percentage of its sequence identity with trypsin-like enzymes but also on its proteolytic specificity (i.e., preference for an Arg or a Lys residue in P1 position), Der p 3 (group 3) was classified into the S1A serine protease family (25–27). To date, the binding of IgE from sera of allergic patients to Der p 3 appears controversial and varies between 10 and 100% (7, 25, 27–30). Although the protein substrates targeted by Der p 3 still need to be fully elucidated, the proteolytic activation of PAR-2 by Der p 3 was clearly demonstrated (31, 32). Moreover, the enzymatic activity of a recombinant form of Der p 3 toward the QAR-AMC fluorescent peptide substrate was demonstrated to be 50 times higher than that of Der p 1, thereby indicating that although present in low quantity in the HDM extracts, Der p 3 greatly contributes to the total proteolytic activity of the HDM extracts (33).

Der p 3 is synthesized in mites as a pre-zymogen constituted of a signal peptide (18 residues), a propeptide of 11 residues, and a serine protease domain of 232 residues (Table 1) (25). In contrast to the Der p 1 propeptide, the Der p 3 prosequence was shown as not involved in the correct folding of the zymogen (34). Although it shows poor inhibitory capacity toward the mature protease, the Der p 3 propeptide is essential to block the Ile_12 residue of Der p 3 and to maintain the allergen in less active conformation as previously observed for trypsinogen, the precursor of trypsin (33–35). Trypsinogen is commonly activated through inter-molecular cleavages by the membrane serine protease enterokinase, following the recognition of a conserved poly-aspartyl lysine motif [(D)DDDK] located at the end of the propeptide (36, 37). Alternatively, trypsinogen can be activated through autocatalytic cleavage occurring after neutralization of the negative charges of the poly-aspartyl lysine motif by calcium ions (36, 38, 39). Compared with other trypsin proteases, the propeptide of proDer p 3 (NPILPASPNAT11-) shows some distinct features such as the presence of a Thr instead of an Arg or a Lys residue in P1 position. Consequently and in contrast to trypsinogen, no auto-activation of recombinant proDer p 3 was observed (33). The activation mechanism of proDer p 3 produced in P. pastoris was shown to be inter-molecular and led by cysteine protease Der p 1 (33) (Table 1). It is noteworthy that the N-glycosylation at -N_9AT_11- site within the propeptide decreased the maturation rate as observed for proDer p 1 (33). The maturation of proDer p 3 was also shown to depend on the interactions between the polyproline motif (P_2ILP_5ASP_8) of the propeptide and Der p 1, since mutation or deletion in this motif, especially of Pro_5 and Pro_8, drastically reduced the activation rate of the zymogen (33, 34). This uncommon polyproline motif within the protease propeptide was also demonstrated to protect proDer p 3 against undesired hydrolysis (33, 34). Indeed, as observed for trypsin, mature Der p 3 undergoes rapid autolysis through cleavages at the -GGEK_17-A_18LAG- and -KNAK_115-A_116VGL- sites, explaining more probably the low amount of Der p 3 detected in HDM extracts (25, 27, 33, 34).

proDer p 6

Der p 6 (group 6) is a chymotrypsin-like serine protease (S1 family) that preferentially cleaves peptide bonds preceded by an aromatic residue (i.e., Phe, Tyr, and Trp) (30). The precursor of Der p 6 is composed of a signal peptide of 16 residues, a propeptide of 34 amino acids, and a catalytic domain of 231 amino acids (Table 1) (40). The propeptide of Der p 6 has recently been shown to act as an inhibitor of the cognate catalytic domain (16). This suggested that as for Der p 1 and Der p 3, the propeptide of Der p 6 regulates the spatio-temporal activation of the protease zymogen in mites (16). Similarly to Der p 3, the propeptide of Der p 6 was shown as not required for the correct folding of recombinant Der p 6 expressed in P. pastoris (16).

Surprisingly, while chymotrypsinogen displays an Arg at the C-terminus of its propeptide for the recognition and cleavage by trypsin (41, 42), the C-terminal extremity of the Der p 6 propeptide (-P_31IA_33G-) is highly similar to that of the Der p 3 propeptide (-P_8NA_10T-). In line with this observation, we recently showed that as for proDer p 3, proDer p 6 can be activated by Der p 1 providing a fully active Der p 6 protease presenting the expected mature N-terminal extremity (V_35IGG-) (Table 1) (16).

proDer p 9

Although very poorly characterized, Der p 9 (group 9) is classified as a collagenolytic-like serine protease on the basis of its ability to hydrolyze collagen (43). Interestingly, its high percentage of identity with Der p 3 (76%) together with the conservation of the residues corresponding to the catalytic triad (His_48–Asp_88–Ser_200) as well as those related to the specificity pocket all suggest that Der p 9 could be a trypsin-like protease. Moreover, like Der p 3 and trypsin, Der p 9 was shown to activate PAR-2 through a proteolytic cleavage occurring at the -SKGR_36-S_37LIG- site of the receptor (32).

The Der p 9 pre-zymogen is composed of a signal peptide of 17 residues, a propeptide of 7 amino acids (TRNIPLG_7−) preceding a 220-residue catalytic domain (Table 1) (43) (Uniprot: Q8MWR5). The role of the propeptide and the activation mechanism leading to fully active protease Der p 9 remain to be fully elucidated. By using fluorescence resonance energy transfer (FRET) substrates, we have recently demonstrated that recombinant and natural active Der p 1 cleave the peptide mimicking the junction between the propeptide and the mature form of Der p 9 (Dnp-IPLG_7-V_8IGG-AMC), which suggests that Der p 1 could also be critical for the maturation of proDer p 9 (Table 1) (16). Nevertheless, the isolation of another cDNA coding for a Der p 9 related serine protease with an alternative putative extended propeptide sequence (Uniprot: Q7Z163, Q8MWR4) would require additional experiments.

UNCOMMON AND UNIQUE ACTIVATION PATHWAY

Taken together, the in vitro results generated using recombinant forms of the different zymogens and FRET substrates clearly demonstrate the major role of Der p 1 in the activation process of the D. pteronyssinus mite allergen proteases (11, 13, 14, 16, 18, 33). Following its auto-activation under acidic conditions, Der p 1 remarkably orchestrates the inter-molecular maturation of its own precursor (proDer p 1) but also of serine protease precursors proDer p 3, proDer p 6, and most probably proDer p 9 (Figure 1) (11, 13, 14, 16, 18, 33).

FIGURE 1 | Protease activation cascade in the digestive tract of the mite Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus. The box represents the activation cascade in the hindgut. AMg, Anterior midgut; PMg, Posterior midgut; Hg, Hindgut.

Although the exact location where the maturation of the allergen proteases takes place in the mite remains unknown, different hypotheses can be considered. Mite proteases Der f 1, Der p 1, Der f 3, and Der p 6 were all immuno-localized in the digestive tract of the Dermatophagoides farinae and D. pteronyssinus species (16, 44–46). In particular, Der p 1 was localized in the cells lining the anterior midgut (AMg) corresponding to an acidic environment (pH 4), in the posterior midgut (PMg) (pH 5) as well as in the hindgut (Hg) where the pH was shown to reach a value of 6 (16, 44, 45, 47, 48). It is therefore plausible that proDer p 1 is secreted in the anterior gut and activated in the acidic lumen. Alternatively, it is worth noticing that the Der p 1 propeptide contains a highly conserved two-lysine motif (Lys_37 and Lys_72) that might be involved in the targeting of the zymogen to the acidic vesicles of the anterior gut cells to initiate its intracellular maturation before its release in the lumen (49, 50). Serine proteases Der f 3 and Der p 6 were observed in the Hg (16, 46) and Der p 1 was co-localized with Der p 6 in the Hg of D. pteronyssinus sections indicating that mature protease Der p 1 could activate the secreted serine protease zymogens in the Hg where pH corresponds to its maximum activity (i.e., pH 6.5) (16, 48).

The activation mechanisms of the serine protease zymogens of the trypsin-like family (proDer p 3 and proDer p 6) by a cysteine protease (Der p 1) appear to be very uncommon for such protease families and are most probably related to the presence of specific residues at the C-termini of the propeptides. Noticeably, the P4–P3–P2–P1 residues (Schechter and Berger nomenclature) N-terminally located to the cleavage sites of the Der p 1 (LNAE_80-), Der p 3 (PNAT_11-), Der p 6 (PIAG_34-), and Der p 9 (IPLG_7-) proteases are all similar and perfectly match Der p 1 specificity (21). It is noteworthy that the propeptides of homologous zymogens from other dust mites such as the D. farinae and Euroglyphus maynei species exhibit a high degree of similarity to those from D. pteronyssinus suggesting that a similar proteolytic pathway might also occur in these organisms (Table 2) (16).

Table 2 | Activation sites of zymogens from Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus, Dermatophagoides farinae, and Euroglyphus maynei species.

CONCLUSION

During the last decade, we and others have unraveled the in vitro activation mechanisms of the mite cysteine (Der p 1) and serine (Der p 3, Der p 6, and Der p 9) protease precursors. All the generated data highlighted the role of Der p 1 as the “maestro” in the maturation processes of the different HDM protease allergens. This orchestration which appears rather uncommon among the protease world depends on specific sequences present at the C-terminus of the different propeptides.

Although it remains to be demonstrated that in vivo HDM protease allergen maturation is similar to the in vitro observations, the elucidation of the present activation cascade firstly provides key information for the design of new potent specific inhibitors to these clinically relevant allergens. Such molecules represent potential novel acaricidal compounds to control the HDM population by impairing their digestive function. The critical role of PAR-2 activation in HDM allergy and the effective PAR-2 cleavage by at least Der p 3 and Der p 9 demonstrates the interest in the blockage of the proteolytic activity to modulate the HDM allergic response (31, 32, 51, 52). It must be pointed out that the first preclinical results generated with inhaled Der p 1-specific allergen delivery inhibitors also provide clear evidence for the interest of such therapeutics in the treatment of HDM allergy (53).

Secondly, consistent productions of highly pure and fully active recombinant mature HDM protease allergens could open the way for further characterization of their proteolytic specificities, for better definition of their respective interplay with the innate and adaptive immune system and for analysis of their IgE reactivity. Finally, the mapping of their corresponding IgE-binding epitopes, in the absence of any propeptide interference (epitope masking), could initiate the development of hypoallergenic variants for novel immunotherapeutic treatments.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Marie-Eve Dumez and Andy Chevigné designed the content and supervised the writing of the publication. Marie-Eve Dumez, Julie Herman, Vincenzo Campisi, Alain Jacquet, and Andy Chevigné wrote the minireview. Moreno Galleni critically revised the intellectual content of the publication. All authors gave their final approval to the version to be published.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank Dr. Anne-Catherine Mailleux for kindly offering the Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus image and Michel Turcato for assistance with image design. Dust mite scheme is used with permission of Dust Mites Journal (by Matthew J. Colloff). Copyright CSIRO. Published by CSIRO PUBLISHING, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. http://www.publish.csiro.au/pid/6022.htm

REFERENCES

1. Gregory LG, Lloyd CM. Orchestrating house dust mite-associated allergy in the lung. Trends Immunol (2011) 32:402–11. doi:10.1016/j.it.2011.06.006

2. Thomas WR, Hales BJ, Smith WA. House dust mite allergens in asthma and allergy. Trends Mol Med (2010) 16:321–8. doi:10.1016/j.molmed.2010.04.008

3. Jacquet A. Innate immune responses in house dust mite allergy. ISRN Allergy (2013) 2013:735031. doi:10.1155/2013/735031

4. Jacquet A. Interactions of airway epithelium with protease allergens in the allergic response. Clin Exp Allergy (2011) 41:305–11. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2222.2010.03661.x

5. Post S, Nawijn MC, Hackett TL, Baranowska M, Gras R, van Oosterhout AJ, et al. The composition of house dust mite is critical for mucosal barrier dysfunction and allergic sensitisation. Thorax (2012) 67:488–95. doi:10.1136/thoraxjnl-2011-200606

6. Thomas WR, Smith WA, Hales BJ, Mills KL, O’Brien RM. Characterization and immunobiology of house dust mite allergens. Int Arch Allergy Immunol (2002) 129:1–18. doi:10.1159/000065179

7. Hales BJ, Martin AC, Pearce LJ, Laing IA, Hayden CM, Goldblatt J, et al. IgE and IgG anti-house dust mite specificities in allergic disease. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2006) 118:361–7. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2006.04.001

8. Weghofer M, Thomas WR, Kronqvist M, Mari A, Purohit A, Pauli G, et al. Variability of IgE reactivity profiles among European mite allergic patients. Eur J Clin Invest (2008) 38:959–65. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2362.2008.02048.x

9. Chua KY, Stewart GA, Thomas WR, Simpson RJ, Dilworth RJ, Plozza TM, et al. Sequence analysis of cDNA coding for a major house dust mite allergen, Der p 1. Homology with cysteine proteases. J Exp Med (1988) 167:175–82. doi:10.1084/jem.167.1.175

10. Meno K, Thorsted PB, Ipsen H, Kristensen O, Larsen JN, Spangfort MD, et al. The crystal structure of recombinant proDer p 1, a major house dust mite proteolytic allergen. J Immunol Sep (2005) 175:3835–45.

11. Chevigne A, Barumandzadeh R, Groslambert S, Cloes B, Dehareng D, Filee P, et al. Relationship between propeptide pH unfolding and inhibitory ability during proDer p 1 activation mechanism. J Mol Biol (2007) 374:170–85. doi:10.1016/j.jmb.2007.08.025

12. Jacquet A, Haumont M, Massaer M, Daminet V, Garcia L, Mazzu P, et al. Biochemical and immunological characterization of a recombinant precursor form of the house dust mite allergen Der p 1 produced by Drosophila cells. Clin Exp Allergy (2000) 30:677–84. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2222.2000.00823.x

13. Takai T, Mineki R, Nakazawa T, Takaoka M, Yasueda H, Murayama K, et al. Maturation of the activities of recombinant mite allergens Der p 1 and Der f 1, and its implication in the blockade of proteolytic activity. FEBS Lett (2002) 531:265–72. doi:10.1016/S0014-5793(02)03534-2

14. van Oort E, de Heer PG, van Leeuwen WA, Derksen NI, Muller M, Huveneers S, et al. Maturation of Pichia pastoris-derived recombinant pro-Der p 1 induced by deglycosylation and by the natural cysteine protease Der p 1 from house dust mite. Eur J Biochem (2002) 269:671–9. doi:10.1046/j.0014-2956.2001.02700.x

15. Chevigne A, Dumez ME, Dumoulin M, Matagne A, Jacquet A, Galleni M. Comparative study of mature and zymogen mite cysteine protease stability and pH unfolding. Biochim Biophys Acta (2010) 1800:937–45. doi:10.1016/j.bbagen.2010.05.011

16. Herman J, Thelen N, Smargiasso N, Mailleux AC, Luxen A, Cloes M, et al. Der p 1 is the primary activator of Der p 3, Der p 6 and Der p 9 the proteolytic allergens produced by the house dust mite Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus. Biochim Biophys Acta (2013) 1840(3):1117–24. doi:10.1016/j.bbagen.2013.11.017

17. Zhang J, Hamilton JM, Garrod DR, Robinson C. Interactions between mature Der p 1 and its free prodomain indicate membership of a new family of C1 peptidases. Allergy (2007) 62:1302–9. doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.2007.01492.x

18. Jacquet A, Magi M, Petry H, Bollen A. High-level expression of recombinant house dust mite allergen Der p 1 in Pichia pastoris. Clin Exp Allergy (2002) 32:1048–53. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2222.2002.01437.x

19. Burtin D, Chabre H, Olagnier B, Didierlaurent A, Couret MN, Comeau D, et al. Production of native and modified recombinant Der p 1 molecules in tobacco plants. Clin Exp Allergy (2009) 39:760–70. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2222.2009.03201.x

20. Massaer M, Mazzu P, Haumont M, Magi M, Daminet V, Bollen A, et al. High-level expression in mammalian cells of recombinant house dust mite allergen proDer p 1 with optimized codon usage. Int Arch Allergy Immunol (2001) 125:32–43. doi:10.1159/000053794

21. Harris J, Mason DE, Li J, Burdick KW, Backes BJ, Chen T, et al. Activity profile of dust mite allergen extract using substrate libraries and functional proteomic microarrays. Chem Biol (2004) 11:1361–72. doi:10.1016/j.chembiol.2004.08.008

22. Deslee G, Charbonnier AS, Hammad H, Angyalosi G, Tillie-Leblond I, Mantovani A, et al. Involvement of the mannose receptor in the uptake of Der p 1, a major mite allergen, by human dendritic cells. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2002) 110(5):763–70. doi:10.1067/mai.2002.129121

23. Royer PJ, Emara M, Yang C, Al-Ghouleh A, Tighe P, Jones N, et al. The mannose receptor mediates the uptake of diverse native allergens by dendritic cells and determines allergen-induced T cell polarization through modulation of IDO activity. J Immunol (2010) 185:1522–31. doi:10.4049/jimmunol.1000774

24. Takai T, Mizuuchi E, Kikuchi Y, Nagamune T, Okumura K, Ogawa H. Glycosylation of recombinant proforms of major house dust mite allergens Der p 1 and Der f 1 decelerates the speed of maturation. Int Arch Allergy Immunol (2006) 139:181–7. doi:10.1159/000091163

25. Smith WA, Chua KY, Kuo MC, Rogers BL, Thomas WR. Cloning and sequencing of the Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus group III allergen, Der p III. Clin Exp Allergy (1994) 24:220–8. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2222.1994.tb00223.x

26. Stewart GA, Lake FR, Thompson PJ. Faecally derived hydrolytic enzymes from Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus: physicochemical characterisation of potential allergens. Int Arch Allergy Appl Immunol (1991) 95:248–56. doi:10.1159/000235437

27. Stewart GA, Ward LD, Simpson RJ, Thompson PJ. The group III allergen from the house dust mite Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus is a trypsin-like enzyme. Immunology (1992) 75:29–35.

28. Ando T, Homma R, Ino Y, Ito G, Miyahara A, Yanagihara T, et al. Trypsin-like protease of mites: purification and characterization of trypsin-like protease from mite faecal extract Dermatophagoides farinae. Relationship between trypsin-like protease and Der f III. Clin Exp Allergy (1993) 23:777–84. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2222.1993.tb00366.x

29. Heymann PW, Chapman MD, Aalberse RC, Fox JW, Platts-Mills TA. Antigenic and structural analysis of group II allergens (Der f II and Der p II) from house dust mites (Dermatophagoides spp). J Allergy Clin Immunol (1989) 83:1055–67. doi:10.1016/0091-6749(89)90447-8

30. Yasueda H, Mita H, Akiyama K, Shida T, Ando T, Sugiyama S, et al. Allergens from Dermatophagoides mites with chymotryptic activity. Clin Exp Allergy (1993) 23:384–90. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2222.1993.tb00343.x

31. Adam E, Hansen KK, Astudillo Fernandez O, Coulon L, Bex F, Duhant X, et al. The house dust mite allergen Der p 1, unlike Der p 3, stimulates the expression of interleukin-8 in human airway epithelial cells via a proteinase-activated receptor-2-independent mechanism. J Biol Chem (2006) 281:6910–23. doi:10.1074/jbc.M507140200

32. Sun G, Stacey MA, Schmidt M, Mori L, Mattoli S. Interaction of mite allergens Der p3 and Der p9 with protease-activated receptor-2 expressed by lung epithelial cells. J Immunol (2001) 167:1014–21.

33. Dumez ME, Teller N, Mercier F, Tanaka T, Vandenberghe I, Vandenbranden M, et al. Activation mechanism of recombinant Der p 3 allergen zymogen: contribution of cysteine protease Der p 1 and effect of propeptide glycosylation. J Biol Chem (2008) 283(45):30606–17. doi:10.1074/jbc.M803041200

34. Dumez ME, Herman J, Campisi V, Bouaziz A, Rosu F, Luxen A, et al. The proline-rich motif of the proDer p 3 allergen propeptide is crucial for protease-protease interaction. PLoS One (2013) 8:e68014. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068014

35. Hedstrom L, Lin TY, Fast W. Hydrophobic interactions control zymogen activation in the trypsin family of serine proteases. Biochemistry (1996) 35:4515–23. doi:10.1021/bi951928k

36. Chen JM, Kukor Z, Le Marechal C, Toth M, Tsakiris L, Raguenes O, et al. Evolution of trypsinogen activation peptides. Mol Biol Evol (2003) 20:1767–77. doi:10.1093/molbev/msg183

37. Nemoda Z, Sahin-Toth M. The tetra-aspartate motif in the activation peptide of human cationic trypsinogen is essential for autoactivation control but not for enteropeptidase recognition. J Biol Chem (2005) 280:29645–52. doi:10.1074/jbc.M505661200

38. Brodrick JW, Largman C, Johnson JH, Geokas MC. Human cationic trypsinogen. Purification, characterization, and characteristics of autoactivation. J Biol Chem (1978) 253:2732–6.

39. Kay J, Kassell B. The autoactivation of trypsinogen. J Biol Chem (1971) 246:6661–5.

40. Bennett BJ, Thomas WR. Cloning and sequencing of the group 6 allergen of Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus. Clin Exp Allergy (1996) 26:1150–4. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2222.1996.tb00501.x

41. Jacobsen CF. The activation of chymotrypsinogen. C R Trav Lab Carlsberg Chim (1947) 27(20):447–54.

42. Kunitz M, Northrop JH. Crystalline chymo-trypsin and chymo-trypsinogen. I. Isolation, crystallization, and general properties of a new proteolytic enzyme and its precursor. J Gen Physiol (1935) 18:433–58. doi:10.1085/jgp.18.4.433

43. King C, Simpson RJ, Moritz RL, Reed GE, Thompson PJ, Stewart GA. The isolation and characterization of a novel collagenolytic serine protease allergen (Der p 9) from the dust mite Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus. J Allergy Clin Immunol (1996) 98:739–47. doi:10.1016/S0091-6749(96)70121-5

44. Thomas B, Heap P, Carswell F. Ultrastructural localization of the allergen Der p I in the gut of the house dust mite Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus. Int Arch Allergy Appl Immunol (1991) 94:365–7. doi:10.1159/000235405

45. Tovey ER, Baldo BA. Localization of antigens and allergens in thin sections of the house dust mite, Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus (Acari: Pyroglyphidae). J Med Entomol (1990) 27:368–76.

46. Zhan ZK, Ji KM, Liu XY, Liu ZG, Li M, Chen JJ, et al. Monoclonal antibodies against recombinant Der f 3 reveal localization of Der f 3 in the gut and faecal pellets of Dermatophagoides farinae. Exp Appl Acarol (2010) 52:63–71. doi:10.1007/s10493-010-9349-9

47. Colloff MJ. Dust Mites. Dordrecht: CSIRO Publishing and Springer Science (2009). 583 p.

48. Erban T, Hubert J. Determination of pH in regions of the midguts of acaridid mites. J Insect Sci (2010) 10:42. doi:10.1673/031.010.4201

49. Cuozzo JW, Tao K, Cygler M, Mort JS, Sahagian GG. Lysine-based structure responsible for selective mannose phosphorylation of Cathepsin D and Cathepsin L defines a common structural motif for lysosomal enzyme targeting. J Biol Chem (1998) 273:21067–76. doi:10.1074/jbc.273.33.21067

50. Wiederanders B, Kaulmann G, Schilling K. Functions of propeptide parts in cysteine proteases. Curr Protein Pept Sci (2003) 4:309–26. doi:10.2174/1389203033487081

51. Davidson CE, Asaduzzaman M, Arizmendi NG, Polley D, Wu Y, Gordon JR, et al. Proteinase-activated receptor-2 activation participates in allergic sensitization to house dust mite allergens in a murine model. Clin Exp Allergy (2013) 43:1274–85. doi:10.1111/cea.12185

52. de Boer JD, Van’t Veer C, Stroo I, van der Meer AJ, de Vos AF, van der Zee JS, et al. Protease-activated receptor-2 deficient mice have reduced house dust mite-evoked allergic lung inflammation. Innate Immun (2013). doi:10.1177/1753425913503387

53. Robinson C, Zhang J, Richardson J, Chen J, Francis N, Garrod DR, et al. Cysteine peptidase inhibitor Adz 51,457 attenuates the recruitment of dendritic cells and eosinophils to the airways of mice challenged with house dust mite allergens. Am J Respir Crit Care Med (2012).

Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Received: 13 December 2013; accepted: 18 March 2014; published online: 31 March 2014.

Citation: Dumez M-E, Herman J, Campizi V, Galleni M, Jacquet A and Chevigné A (2014) Orchestration of an uncommon maturation cascade of the house dust mite protease allergen quartet. Front. Immunol. 5:138. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2014.00138

This article was submitted to Immunotherapies and Vaccines, a section of the journal Frontiers in Immunology.

Copyright © 2014 Dumez, Herman, Campizi, Galleni, Jacquet and Chevigné. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

REVIEW ARTICLE
published: 14 February 2014
doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2014.00061

Helminth allergens, parasite-specific IgE, and its protective role in human immunity

Colin Matthew Fitzsimmons[1][†], Franco Harald Falcone[2]*[†] and David William Dunne[1]

1 Department of Pathology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

2 School of Pharmacy, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK

Edited by:

Annette Kuehn, Centre de Recherche Public de la Santé, Luxembourg

Reviewed by:

Tracey Lamb, Emory University School of Medicine, USA
Adriano Mari, Centri Associati di Allergologia Molecolare, Italy

*Correspondence:

Franco Harald Falcone, Division of Molecular and Cellular Science, School of Pharmacy, University of Nottingham, Boots Science Building, Science Road, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK
e-mail: franco.falcone@notttingham.ac.uk

†Colin Matthew Fitzsimmons and Franco Harald Falcone have contributed equally to this work.

The Th2 immune response, culminating in eosinophilia and IgE production, is not only characteristic of allergy but also of infection by parasitic worms (helminths). Anti-parasite IgE has been associated with immunity against a range of helminth infections and many believe that IgE and its receptors evolved to help counter metazoan parasites. Allergens (IgE-antigens) are present in only a small minority of protein families and known IgE targets in helminths belong to these same families (e.g., EF-hand proteins, tropomyosin, and PR-1 proteins). During some helminth infection, especially with the well adapted hookworm, the Th2 response is moderated by parasite-expressed molecules. This has been associated with reduced allergy in helminth endemic areas and worm infection or products have been proposed as treatments for allergic conditions. However, some infections (especially Ascaris) are associated with increased allergy and this has been linked to cross-reactivity between worm proteins (e.g., tropomyosins) and highly similar molecules in dust-mites and insects. The overlap between allergy and helminth infection is best illustrated in Anisakis simplex, a nematode that when consumed in under-cooked fish can be both an infective helminth and a food allergen. Nearly 20 molecular allergens have been isolated from this species, including tropomyosin (Ani s 3) and the EF-hand protein, Ani s troponin. In this review, we highlight aspects of the biology and biochemistry of helminths that may have influenced the evolution of the IgE response. We compare dominant IgE-antigens in worms with clinically important environmental allergens and suggest that arrays of such molecules will provide important information on anti-worm immunity as well as allergy.

Keywords: helminth, allergen, Schistosoma mansoni, protective role, IgE

THE IgE RESPONSE IS A PHYSIOLOGICAL IMMUNE RESPONSE TO HELMINTH INFECTION

The parallels between allergy and the immune response to parasitic worms (helminths) have been noted for some time. Unlike most other inflammatory/infectious conditions, allergy, and helminths induce strongly Th2-skewed responses associated with cytokines such as IL-4, IL-5, and IL-13, with mastocytosis, eosinophilia, and antibody class-switching to produce IgE [reviewed in Ref. (1)]. This normally rare, tightly controlled antibody isotype is greatly elevated in helminth infection. It is widely accepted that IgE, its receptors and distinctive cellular responses did not evolve to target harmless molecules occurring in plant pollen, dust-mites, or animal dander. Instead many believe that the IgE axis evolved to counter metazoan parasites (worms and parasitic arthropods) which are too large to be phagocytosed, and that allergy is a misdirected anti-parasite response in hypersensitive people (2). The symptoms of allergic responses; lachrymation, rhinitis, coughing, increased mucus production, and itching in response to histamine release are all responses likely to dislodge, trap, or flush out large parasites from skin or mucosa, e.g., by scratching.

There are however critical differences between the two conditions. Allergy occurs in people with atopy; defined as “a genetic predisposition toward the development of immediate hypersensitivity reactions against common environmental antigens” (3). It is a polygenic disorder linked to polymorphisms in genes of cytokine, cytokine receptors, and transcription factors associated with Th2 immune responses and with the expression of IgE and its receptors (4–7). In contrast, the elevated Th2 cytokines, IgE and eosinophilia during helminth infection are normal physiological responses to these pathogens. Furthermore, helminths actively moderate the inflammatory Th2 response of the host, inducing regulatory T and B cells, alternatively activated macrophages and production of immunoregulatory cytokines, such as IL-10 and TGFß, as well as IgG4 antibodies that counteract IgE [reviewed in Ref. (8)].

Recently Medzhitov and colleagues (9) re-appraised the toxin hypothesis of allergy (10), proposing that the IgE-mediated hypersensitivity response evolved to counter venoms and other noxious substances rather than macro-parasites. They argued that (1) immediate hypersensitivity is very rapid and worms are slow, (2) IgE is not required for worm immunity in mice, and (3) allergens do not have any obvious relationship with worms. Instead they proposed that it is toxins and venoms that need to be rapidly neutralized and that unpleasant allergic symptoms provoke toxin-avoidance behavior. This “toxin hypothesis” of allergy can in fact be traced back to the original discovery of anaphylaxis by Portier and Richet (11) [reviewed in (12)]. However, we would argue that (1) defense against invading helminth larvae also requires very fast responses – as elegantly demonstrated in the film of Schistosoma mansoni cercariae penetrating and moving rapidly through skin tissue (13). Most recently, work by Obata-Ninomiya in Karasuyama’s group (14) has demonstrated the importance of IgE (via ablation of the high affinity receptor) on basophils (but not mast cells) in trapping invading Nippostrongylus brasiliensis larvae in the skin of mice.

While it can be shown that IgE is not strictly necessary for anti-worm immunity in mice [argument (2) above], it needs to be stressed that there are other immunity mechanisms operating as well; IgE is a late mammalian additional mechanism to the Th2-mediated mechanisms of lower vertebrates (which are nonetheless still present in mammals), thus IgE-immunity is not the only mechanism of immunity against metazoan parasites available to mammals. This is exemplified by the occurrence of Th2-like immune responses to helminth infection in avian hosts in the absence of IgE (15). Finally [argument (3) above], we propose here that nearly all known allergens have equivalents (of widely varying structure) in metazoan parasites.

Most of the evidence relating IgE to anti-helminth immunity comes from epidemiological data. In a number of studies on human schistosomiasis, levels of anti-parasite IgE have been correlated with resistance to infection (16–22). Anti-parasite IgE responses have also been associated with immunity in human infections with hookworms (23, 24), Trichuris (25), and Ascaris (26, 27). Human experimental infection with a single, low dose of Necator americanus larvae in the context of helminth immunotherapy trials has shown that peripheral blood basophils become sensitized to parasitic allergens within 6 weeks of exposure, and remain fully responsive to stimulation with hookworm allergens years after this single infection (28). Thus, it appears that helminths are indeed powerful inducers of an IgE response, but how does this response relate to allergy?

EFFECTS OF HELMINTHS ON ALLERGY

Paradoxically, the global increase in allergy especially in urban areas (29) has led researchers to propose a modified hygiene hypothesis in which the decline in helminth infections is associated with an increase in allergic diseases (30). A number of studies show that communities with helminth infections have reduced rates of allergy (31–33) and the evidence that people with hookworm have less asthma (34–36) has inspired researchers to use experimental infections on asthma patients (37). It is proposed that the active suppression of Th2 responses by helminths has a bystander effect on concurrent allergic responses [reviewed in Ref. (8)]. In a study on Gabonese children, van den Biggelaar et al. (31) showed that the increased IL-10 levels induced by schistosome infection were negatively correlated with dust-mite sensitivity. The other side of these phenomena is that anti-helminth treatment programs risk increased rates of allergic disease and this has already been demonstrated in a number of intervention studies (38–40).

Under some circumstances helminth infection can actually increase prevalence of atopic disease and asthma (41, 42). A meta-analysis of 30 clinical studies on intestinal nematodes, concluded that while hookworm reduced the incidence of asthma, Ascaris lumbricoides increased the risk (34). It is likely that cross-reactivity between Ascaris and environmental allergens is involved.

The concept of cross-reactivity between helminth and environmental allergens is central to this review. We suggest that most if not all environmental allergens can be related to helminth counterparts and that the IgE response against these allergens is associated with host protection.

ARE ALL ALLERGENS PROTEINS WITH HOMOLOGS IN METAZOAN PARASITES?

Work in the allergy field has shown that very few protein families contain allergens (43) and importantly, the molecules targeted by IgE in helminths appear to be in these known allergen families (see Tables 1 and 2). Certain domains are highly represented in the list of known molecular allergens with the 10 most common allergen families containing approximately 40% of all know allergens. In the following section, we review the relationship between known helminth allergens and the structural allergen classification in the allergen database AllFam (http://www.meduniwien.ac.at/allergens/allfam).

Table 1 | Summary of helminthic allergens.

Table 2 | Examples of known allergens, compiled from AllFam (43) and published literature, illustrating that nearly all families of allergens in animals, plants, or fungi have corresponding allergens in helminths.

For example, the muscle protein tropomyosin (AllFam code AF054) is an important IgE target in a number of nematode infections; Onchocerca volvulus (76, 77); Ascaris lumbricoides (78); Anisakis simplex [Ani s 3, (46)]; and tropomyosin from the blood fluke Schistosoma mansoni is also a human IgE antigen (Fitzsimmons, unpublished data). Tropomyosin is highly conserved across many invertebrates and is responsible for much of the IgE cross-reactivity between Ascaris and dust-mites (63). Cockroach tropomyosin is a major allergen (Bla g 7) that also shows strong IgE cross-reactivity with the highly similar Ascaris molecule (78). Santiago and co-authors (77) showed that tropomyosin from filarial nematodes is recognized by IgE against dust-mite tropomyosin (Der p 10), which can be absorbed completely using the nematode molecule. More importantly, they showed that the IgE response to Der p 10 was stronger in filarial-infected than in uninfected individuals.

Paramyosin is another allergen family (AF100) from invertebrate muscle targeted in IgE responses against Schistosoma japonicum (20), Ascaris lumbricoides (79), Anisakis simplex [Ani s 2 (45, 80)], and Onchocerca volvulus (81). There is evidence that Ascaris paramyosin shows IgE cross-reactivity with the tropical dust-mite paramyosin and allergen Blo t 11 (79). Cross-reactivity between helminths and environmental allergens has clear implications. Not only may some helminth infections increase sensitivity to mites and insects, but also high degrees of homology between parasite and allergic orthologs could lead to false diagnosis. Human helminth infections are not restricted to tropical regions (82). Ani s 2 and Ani s 3 are thought to be responsible for much of the cross-reactivity between Anisakis and other invertebrate species (83).

The helminth venom-allergen-like (VAL) proteins are another family targeted by IgE. Hookworms secrete a VAL-like molecule, called Ancylostoma Secreted Protein-2 (ASP-2), which was shown to be a potent IgE antigen in human studies in China and Brazil (24, 84). An IgE response to this molecule has been correlated with immunity (24). ASP-2 belongs to the Pathogen related-1 (PR-1) allergen family (AF044) characterized by the presence of the SCP/TAPS domain (Pfam, PF00188). The family contains group 3 and 5 insect venom allergens and VAL molecules from filarial nematodes, Onchocerca volvulus (85), and Brugia malayi (86), as well as trematodes S. mansoni (87) and S. japonicum (88). Furthermore, the presence of VAL molecules is also predicted in tapeworms (89). One of the S. mansoni homologs (SmVAL4) has been recently shown to be an IgE antigen in mice (90), but requires confirmation in the natural human host.

The tegumental allergen-like (TAL) proteins are some of the most dominant IgE-antigens in S. mansoni and an IgE response to some members of the TAL family has been associated with resistance to re-infection with the parasite (18, 19, 22). These molecules are EF-hand proteins (see Figure 1A), one of the biggest groups of molecular allergens (AF007). Other known allergenic helminth EF-hand proteins include Anisakis simplex troponin C (54) and the Fasciola calcium-binding protein, FgCaBP (91).

FIGURE 1 | (A) Homology modeling of the structure of the dominant SmTAL1 allergen in S. mansoni generated using protein homology/analogy recognition engine 2 (PHYRE2) (132), showing the two helix-loop-helix Ca2+-binding motifs within the EF-hand domain. (B) Transverse section of male S. mansoni worm stained for the surface protein SmCD59 (green) and under that in the tegument layer, the EF-hand protein SmTAL1 (red) (courtesy of Prof. Alan Wilson University of York). The walls of the gut also stain for SmTAL1. The location illustrates how this sub-surface allergen in inaccessible to host IgE, unless the tegument layer is damaged, but its physiological function and role in host protection remain to be elucidated.

The glutathione S-transferase (GST) is another source of IgE cross-reactivity. GST of nematode species is targeted by IgE during infection (92). This enzyme is homologous with other members of the GST allergen family (AllFam, AF010) including major allergens in dust-mite (Der p 8) and cockroach (Bla g 5) as well as IgE-antigens in grass and fungi. GST from the filarial nematode Wuchereria bancrofti binds IgE against Bla g 5 (77).

Probably, the most potent helminth allergens are the nematode-polyprotein-antigens (NPA). These are large multimeric proteins that are cleaved into smaller fatty acid binding subunits (93) with functional but not structural similarity to the lipocalin allergens (AF015). The best characterized example is the ABA-1 protein from Ascaris species. Highly abundant in the body fluid of the adult worm, it provokes a strong IgE response in many infected individuals (93) and this has been associated with resistance to infection (27). The filarial nematode NPA termed gp15/400 has also been shown to be an IgE antigen (94). Interestingly, the non-NPA lipocalin-like fatty acid binding protein from filarial nematodes, BmA1.1, is an IgE antigen which can induce wheal and flare response in sensitized dogs (95).

While some of the Top 10 allergen families (tropomyosins, EF-hand proteins, PR-1, and lipocalins) have members in helminth species that are known to be targeted by IgE during infection, other common allergen families (profilin, trypsin-like serine proteases, and lipocalin) have been identified in helminths, but their IgE binding has not yet been tested (96). Furthermore, the plant prolamins (AF050) and expansins (AF093 and AF094) are Top 10 allergen families that do not contain helminth equivalents. However, this assessment is made on sequence alignment and it is possible that these plant proteins share conformational motifs formed by non-homologous sequences (mimetopes) in un-related proteins from metazoan parasites. There is some evidence for this in that the plant expansin Php p 1 has no sequence homology with the mite allergen Der p 2, but Phl p 1, and Der p 2 have domains that share function (carbohydrate-binding) and close 3D conformational homology (97). While dust-mites are not metazoan parasites, they have close relatives that are (e.g., the scabies mite, Sarcoptes scabiei). Interestingly, the IgE response to Sarcoptes scabiei is thought to be involved in protection against repeat infestation (98).

WHAT MAKES AN ANTIGEN AN ALLERGEN?

Perhaps the greatest unanswered question in allergy is why only a small minority of antigens has allergenic properties. As stated previously, most proteins are not allergens. Thus, there are currently almost 15,000 protein domain families in the Pfam database (http://pfam.sanger.ac.uk/) of which only 255 have been identified in allergens (http://www.meduniwien.ac.at/allergens/allfam). The debate about which functional and molecular properties make a protein an allergen has continued for some time (99–101). Some functional properties give environmental and food proteins, a greater chance of sensitizing susceptible individuals. For example, high thermal stability allows allergens to persist in the environment or survive cooking and digestion. This is well illustrated by the example of plant chitinases, which are members of the pathogenesis-related family of proteins 4 (PR-4). Plant chitinases (AF041) have been described as panallergens in latex-fruit syndrome and are contained in a multitude of plants, such as Heveine [in latex, (102), kiwi fruit (103), in avocado (Pers a1, (104)] or grapes (105) and are related to dust-mite allergens Der p 15 and Der p 18 (106). Consistently with the hypothesis of thermal stability, despite the ubiquitousness of such PR-4 group proteins across the plant kingdom, allergenicity is only reported in foods that are consumed uncooked, as type I chitinases are inactivated by heating (107). While chitinases are also well represented in non-parasitic as well as parasitic helminths, to the best of our knowledge, no helminthic chitinases have yet been reported as allergens. The reasons for this are not understood.

In relation to food allergens and cooking, the special case of Anisakis simplex (A. simplex) deserves to be mentioned. Anisakis is the only currently known case of an organism being both a helminth parasite and a food allergen. The L3 larvae of the marine nematode A. simplex infect fish and cephalopods and consequently people that consume under-cooked seafood, however humans are a non-permissive host and the parasites cannot continue their life-cycle in man. Exposure to this helminth through food has been associated with allergic symptoms; asthma, rhinitis, dermatitis, and conjunctivitis (80), and in the case of uncooked fish, epigastric pain, erythema wheals, and pruritus (“gastroallergic anisakiasis”). It is not clear whether initial sensitization requires live parasite infection (anisakiasis) but it has been shown that sensitized patients can respond to heated or frozen Anisakis antigens in their food (108) or to small quantities by other exposure routes (109), such as skin contact, inhalation, or during skin prick testing. That the immune system responds to Anisakis as an invading helminth and as an allergen suggests that these are two aspects of the same response.

A feature of a relatively small subset of allergens is their proteolytic activity, which may permit penetration of mucosal barriers (110), for example, by cleaving proteins involved in tight junction formation (111). Many helminthic parasites rely on production of proteases during tissue migration, and we have previously argued that such proteases may be a factor underlying the parasites’ intrinsic allergenicity (112).

However, such biological properties are not always present in allergens and the small percentage of protein domains that are targeted by IgE overall, in the absence of common biological activities, suggests they contain structures that are inherently allergenic. These structures vary widely and appear to have little in common overall. Given the probable evolution of the IgE system, we have proposed that proteins have inherent allergenicity because they have structural similarity to dominant antigens in metazoan parasites (96). However, it still remains unclear how such intrinsic structural features selectively enable a subset of antigens to induce, or become the object of, an IgE response.

Another consideration seems necessary. Many of the allergen families described above are also present in humans, but are not the target of an IgE response. Following in silico analysis of animal food proteins and their IgE responses, Jenkins and colleagues proposed that proteins with a sequence identity to a human homolog of >62% were rarely allergenic (113). We believe the IgE system evolved to target Th2 responses at large multi-cellular parasites, organisms that are much more closely related to us that bacterial, fungal, or viral pathogens. This means the evolved molecular targets had to be restricted if foreign metazoan antigens were to be targeted without inducing tolerance or risking auto-reactivity, and that non-parasitic proteins are allergenic because of their homology with metazoan parasites.

The hypothesis was examined by Santiago et al. (114). Using a bioinformatic approach, they compared the sequences of 499 allergens against the predicted proteomes of four helminths (including Schistosoma mansoni), four bacterial, and three fungal species. Their analysis supported previous work by Emanuelsson and Spangfort (115) finding little homology between bacterial proteins and allergens and the work by Jenkins et al. (113) who showed a drop in allergenicity as homology with human equivalents increased. While they reported that over 200 allergens had homologs in helminths, this was the minority, and indeed those with the greatest homology were the least allergenic. They concluded that allergenicity does not depend on similarity with parasite proteins, but on dissimilarity with human proteins. It should be remembered however, that most IgE epitopes are probably conformational (discontinuous) (116, 117) and would not be identified in such primary sequence comparisons.

LIFE-CYCLE EXPRESSION OF HELMINTH ALLERGENS AND THE HOST RESPONSE

Clinically important helminths often have complex life-cycles. Many involve a definitive host (man) and one or more intermediate hosts. The life-cycle expression profile of allergen-like molecules influences the host response. For example, trematodes (flukes) such as schistosomes undergo asexual reproduction in snail species before releasing larvae that infect humans, which then develop into adult worms that produce eggs following sexual reproduction. Some of the schistosome allergen-like TAL proteins are developmentally transcribed (22). SmTAL1 is sequestered inside the adult worms (Figure 1B) and is only exposed on the rare occasions when the adults die (56). Typically, S. mansoni worms live for 7–9 years (118). As individuals are usually infected more than once, resulting in asynchronous development and death of the parasite, this resembles seasonal allergen stimulation and infected people in areas endemic for S. mansoni have high levels of IgE to SmTAL1. SmTAL2 is expressed in schistosome eggs. In chronic infection hundreds of parasite eggs are trapped and die in the tissue every day. In a process that resembles specific allergen immunotherapy (SIT), the IgE response to allergen-like SmTAL2 appears to be desensitized by the continuous exposure to small doses of the antigen, while the specific IgG4 response becomes pronounced (56). SmTAL6 is only expressed in the snail stage and has no effect on the human response (119).

Adult tapeworms live in the lumen of the gut shedding eggs for excretion. If these eggs are ingested by a secondary host, they hatch and larvae encyst in the soft tissue. The contents of these structures are highly allergenic and can cause anaphylaxis if they burst. People carrying cysts of Echinococcus granulosus (echinococcosis) have IgE to parasite antigens AgB, a protease inhibitor, Ag5, a serine protease, and EA21 (65, 67). EA21 is a cyclophilin that shares close homology with allergenic yeast cyclophilin (Mal f 6) and may be cross-reactive with allergenic birch cyclophilin Bet v 7 (65). Infected individuals also produce IgE to the C-terminal region of E. granulosus Heat Shock Protein 70 an antigen with close homology to the dust-mite allergen, Der f HSP70 (68).

Hookworm eggs hatch in the soil where the larvae undergo several molts before becoming the infectious L3 form that penetrates the skin of the foot. The larvae then migrate to the lung and are coughed up, swallowed, and hence taken to their niche in the small intestine. It is the skin-penetrating L3 form that expresses and secretes the VAL protein ASP-2 (120). Since an antibody response to the molecule was associated with reduced infection ASP-2 has been tested as a vaccine candidate (24). Unfortunately, clinical trials in a hookworm endemic region of Brazil had to be stopped when vaccinated volunteers with a probable previous history of infection (as judged by the levels of pre-vaccination parasite-specific IgE) developed symptoms of generalized urticaria (84). The relationship between the protective effects of parasite-specific IgE and the hazards of vaccinating a sensitized population with an allergen present a major conundrum which is currently hampering the development of anti-helminthic vaccinations.

These three examples were chosen to illustrate the concept that allergen expression in helminth parasites is not a generalized feature of parasitic worms but a specific property of distinct developmental phases in the human host which is tightly linked to host protective mechanisms. Anti-protein IgE responses and host defense are two sides of the same coin which in our opinion are inseparable from each other.

However, while the link between the presence of parasite-specific IgE and resistance to infection is well supported by epidemiological and experimental evidence, the detailed molecular basis underlying such resistance is less well understood.

Specifically, one of the great unanswered questions is whether the presence of IgE on FcεRI-carrying cells (mainly basophils, mast cells, eosinophils) and subsequent receptor cross-linking by parasitic allergens is needed for host protection. Is the activation of basophils, mast cells, and other IgE-bearing effector cells necessary for protection?

It is well know that activation of mast cells and eosinophils can release proteases and toxic proteins (chymase, tryptase, major basic protein, eosinophil-derived neurotoxin, eosinophils cationic protein, etc.), some of which have been shown to directly kill larval stages of parasites (121).

Similarly, it could be speculated that IgE-dependent activation of basophils, which can result in the release of preformed or de novo produced highly toxic polypeptides such as Granzyme B (122) and possibly defensins (Falcone, unpublished data), also may result in parasite killing. While host-derived defensins have been shown to be effective against several unicellular parasites such as Plasmodium (123), Toxoplasma (124), Babesia (125), or Trypanosoma (126), their role in anti-helminthic immunity has only recently begun to be explored (127).

A LOOK INTO THE FUTURE: “MOLECULE-BASED” ANALYSIS OF ANTI-PARASITE HOST IMMUNE RESPONSES?

Traditionally, immunoparasitological research has relied on the use of complex antigenic mixtures such as somatic extracts of larval or adult stages, of eggs or of the tegument, or excretory/secretory materials collected in vitro, which all contain a multitude of antigens, allergens, and other un-related components. This can result in a low signal to noise ratio, for example caused by the presence of highly cross-reactive carbohydrate moieties, masking specific interactions at the individual protein level.

Due to the widespread use of complex water-soluble extracts obtained from parasitic materials in the past decades of parasitology research, several questions still remain to be answered. What are the individual molecular targets of the protective IgE response? Are certain patterns of IgE reactivity (rather than against a single determinant) associated with host protection? Do different IgE reactivity patterns correlate with various degrees of resistance to infection or post treatment re-infection?

This is reminiscent of the situation previously encountered in allergy research, which relied on water-soluble extracts which are difficult to standardize for diagnostic purposes (128), and may contain interfering components. Major impulses in the past years have come from introducing component resolved diagnosis (CRD) to the study of human allergy. In CRD, individual recombinant or purified allergens are used for measurement of immunoglobulin responses in allergic individuals (129). This frequently takes advantage of the availability of protein microarrays (130). One of the key advantages of CRD is that it may enable distinction between genuine IgE reactivity and cross-reactive IgE (131).

While the use of CRD in allergy diagnosis is conceptually slightly different (it is used to identify the allergen source when cross-reactive allergen components are present), we suggest that a similar “molecule-based” approach would allow a better understanding of host resistance against helminths at the molecular level and, from a practical point of view, point the way to safer or more effective multi-target anti-helminthic vaccinations.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

If the IgE axis evolved to protect mammals against multi-cellular parasites, studying host responses to these organisms may teach us much about other IgE-mediated phenomena such as allergy. For example, characterizing parasite structures targeted by IgE may identify homologous molecules and potential allergens in novel foods and genetically modified organisms. The relationship between allergy and helminth infection brings costs and benefits. Elucidation of the molecular mechanisms by which some parasites moderate Th2 response in their hosts, may yield improved therapy for allergic conditions. On the other hand, treatment for the same worms in the developing world may inadvertently increase the prevalence of atopic disease. Moreover as a consequence of cross-reactivity between parasite and environmental allergens certain helminths can actually sensitize and aggravate allergy. Parasitic worm infections are a serious health problem in many countries and high resolution molecular techniques developed in the allergy field may help us to understand better the anti-parasite responses that are associated with immunity.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The work described in this publication was supported by the Wellcome Trust via program (ref. number WT 083931/Z/07/Z) and project (ref. number WT 094317/Z/10/Z) grants.

REFERENCES

1. Allen JE, Maizels RM. Diversity and dialogue in immunity to helminths. Nat Rev Immunol (2011) 11:375–88. doi:10.1038/nri2992

2. Artis D, Maizels RM, Finkelman FD. Forum: immunology: allergy challenged. Nature (2012) 484(7395):458–9. doi:10.1038/484458a

3. Johansson SG, Hourihane JO, Bousquet J, Bruijnzeel-Koomen C, Dreborg S, Haahtela T, et al. A revised nomenclature for allergy. An EAACI position statement from the EAACI nomenclature task force. Allergy (2001) 56:813–24. doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.2001.00002.x-i1

4. Steinke JW, Rich SS, Borish L. Genetics of allergic disease. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2008) 121(2 Suppl):S384–7. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2007.07.029

5. Potaczek DP, Nishiyama C, Sanak M, Szczeklik A, Okumura K. Genetic variability of the high-affinity IgE receptor alpha-subunit (FcepsilonRIalpha). Immunol Res (2009) 45:75–84. doi:10.1007/s12026-008-8042-0

6. Zhu N, Gong Y, Chen X, Zhang J, Long F, He J, et al. Association between the polymorphisms of interleukin-4, the interleukin-4 receptor gene and asthma. Chin Med J (Engl) (2013) 126:2943–51.

7. Casaca VI, Illi S, Klucker E, Ballenberger N, Schedel M, von Mutius E, et al. STAT6 polymorphisms are associated with neonatal regulatory T cells and cytokines and atopic diseases at 3 years. Allergy (2013) 68:1249–58. doi:10.1111/all.12220

8. McSorley HJ, Maizels RM. Helminth infections and host immune regulation. Clin Microbiol Rev (2012) 25(4):585–608. doi:10.1128/CMR.05040-11

9. Palm NW, Rosenstein RK, Medzhitov R. Allergic host defences. Nature (2012) 484:465–72. doi:10.1038/nature11047

10. Profet M. The function of allergy: immunological defense against toxins. Q Rev Biol (1991) 66:23–62. doi:10.1086/417049

11. Portier P, Richet C. De l’action anaphylactique de certain venins. C R Soc Bio (1902) 54:170–2.

12. Blank U, Falcone FH, Nilsson G. The history of mast cell and basophil research – some lessons learnt from the last century. Allergy (2013) 68:1093–101. doi:10.1111/all.12197

13. Paveley RA, Aynsley SA, Cook PC, Turner JD, Mountford AP. Fluorescent imaging of antigen released by a skin-invading helminth reveals differential uptake and activation profiles by antigen presenting cells. PLoS Negl Trop Dis (2009) 3:e528. doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0000528

14. Obata-Ninomiya K, Ishiwata K, Tsutsui H, Nei Y, Yoshikawa S, Kawano Y, et al. The skin is an important bulwark of acquired immunity against intestinal helminths. J Exp Med (2013) 210:2583–95. doi:10.1084/jem.20130761

15. Degen WGJ, Daal N, van Rothwell L, Kaiser P, Schijns VEJC. Th1/Th2 polarization by viral and helminth infection in birds. Vet Microbiol (2005) 105:163–7. doi:10.1016/j.vetmic.2004.12.001

16. Rihet P, Demeure CE, Bourgois A, Prata A, Dessein AJ. Evidence for an association between human resistance to Schistosoma mansoni and high anti-larval IgE levels. Eur J Immunol (1991) 21:2679–86. doi:10.1002/eji.1830211106

17. Hagan P, Blumenthal UJ, Dunn D, Simpson AJ, Wilkins HA. Human IgE, IgG4 and resistance to reinfection with Schistosoma haematobium. Nature (1991) 349:243–5. doi:10.1038/349243a0

18. Dunne DW, Butterworth AE, Fulford AJ, Kariuki HC, Langley JG, Ouma JH, et al. Immunity after treatment of human schistosomiasis: association between IgE antibodies to adult worm antigens and resistance to reinfection. Eur J Immunol (1992) 22:1483–94. doi:10.1002/eji.1830220622

19. Dunne DW, Webster M, Smith P, Langley JG, Richardson BA, Fulford AJ, et al. The isolation of a 22 kDa band after SDS-PAGE of Schistosoma mansoni adult worms and its use to demonstrate that IgE responses against the antigen(s) it contains are associated with human resistance to reinfection. Parasite Immunol (1997) 19:79–89. doi:10.1046/j.1365-3024.1997.d01-186.x

20. Jiz M, Friedman JF, Leenstra T, Jarilla B, Pablo A, Langdon G, et al. Immunoglobulin E (IgE) responses to paramyosin predict resistance to reinfection with Schistosoma japonicum and are attenuated by IgG4. Infect Immun (2009) 77:2051–8. doi:10.1128/IAI.00012-09

21. Pinot de Moira A, Fulford AJC, Kabatereine NB, Ouma JH, Booth M, et al. Analysis of complex patterns of human exposure and immunity to Schistosomiasis mansoni: the influence of age, sex, ethnicity and IgE. PLoS Negl Trop Dis (2010) 4:e820. doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0000820

22. Fitzsimmons CM, Jones FM, Pinot de Moira A, Protasio AV, Khalife J, Dickinson HA, et al. Progressive cross-reactivity in IgE responses: an explanation for the slow development of human immunity to schistosomiasis? Infect Immun (2012) 80:4264–70. doi:10.1128/IAI.00641-12

23. Pritchard DI, Quinnell RJ, Walsh EA. Immunity in humans to Necator americanus: IgE, parasite weight and fecundity. Parasite Immunol (1995) 17:71–5. doi:10.1111/j.1365-3024.1995.tb00968.x

24. Bethony J, Loukas A, Smout M, Brooker S, Mendez S, Plieskatt J, et al. Antibodies against a secreted protein from hookworm larvae reduce the intensity of hookworm infection in humans and vaccinated laboratory animals. FASEB J (2005) 19:1743–5.

25. Faulkner H, Turner J, Kamgno J, Pion SD, Boussinesq M, Bradley JE. Age- and infection intensity-dependent cytokine and antibody production in human trichuriasis: the importance of IgE. J Infect Dis (2002) 185:665–72. doi:10.1086/339005

26. McSharry C, Xia Y, Holland CV, Kennedy MW. Natural immunity to Ascaris lumbricoides associated with immunoglobulin E antibody to ABA-1 allergen and inflammation indicators in children. Infect Immun (1999) 67:484–9.

27. Turner JD, Faulkner H, Kamgno J, Kennedy MW, Behnke J, Boussinesq M, et al. Allergen-specific IgE and IgG4 are markers of resistance and susceptibility in a human intestinal nematode infection. Microbes Infect Inst Pasteur (2005) 7:990–6. doi:10.1016/j.micinf.2005.03.036

28. Falcone FH, Telford G, Hooi D, Brown AP, Seabra R, Feary J, et al. Antigen-driven basophil activation is indicative of early Necator americanus infection in IgE-seronegative patients. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2009) 124:1343.e–50.e. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2009.07.039

29. Pearce N, Aït-Khaled N, Beasley R, Mallol J, Keil U, Mitchell E, et al. Worldwide trends in the prevalence of asthma symptoms: phase III of the International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood (ISAAC). Thorax (2007) 62:758–66. doi:10.1136/thx.2006.070169

30. Rook GAW. Review series on helminths, immune modulation and the hygiene hypothesis: the broader implications of the hygiene hypothesis. Immunology (2009) 126:3–11. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2567.2008.03007.x

31. van den Biggelaar AH, van Ree R, Rodrigues LC, Lell B, Deelder AM, Kremsner PG, et al. Decreased atopy in children infected with Schistosoma haematobium: a role for parasite-induced interleukin-10. Lancet (2000) 356:1723–7. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(00)03206-2

32. Cooper PJ, Chico ME, Rodrigues LC, Ordonez M, Strachan D, Griffin GE, et al. Reduced risk of atopy among school-age children infected with geohelminth parasites in a rural area of the tropics. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2003) 111:995–1000. doi:10.1067/mai.2003.1348

33. Rodrigues LC, Newcombe PJ, Cunha SS, Alcantara-Neves NM, Genser B, Cruz AA, et al. Early infection with Trichuris trichiura and allergen skin test reactivity in later childhood. Clin Exp Allergy (2008) 38:1769–77. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2222.2008.03027.x

34. Leonardi-Bee J, Pritchard D, Britton J. Asthma and current intestinal parasite infection: systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med (2006) 174:514–23. doi:10.1164/rccm.200603-331OC

35. Scrivener S, Yemaneberhan H, Zebenigus M, Tilahun D, Girma S, Ali S, et al. Independent effects of intestinal parasite infection and domestic allergen exposure on risk of wheeze in Ethiopia: a nested case-control study. Lancet (2001) 358:1493–9. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(01)06579-5

36. Flohr C, Tuyen LN, Quinnell RJ, Lewis S, Minh TT, Campbell J, et al. Reduced helminth burden increases allergen skin sensitization but not clinical allergy: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in Vietnam. Clin Exp Allergy (2010) 40:131–42. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2222.2009.03346.x

37. Feary JR, Venn AJ, Mortimer K, Brown AP, Hooi D, Falcone FH, et al. Experimental hookworm infection: a randomized placebo-controlled trial in asthma. Clin Exp Allergy (2010) 40:299–306. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2222.2009.03433.x

38. Lynch NR, Hagel I, Perez M, Di Prisco MC, Lopez R, Alvarez N. Effect of anthelmintic treatment on the allergic reactivity of children in a tropical slum. J Allergy Clin Immunol (1993) 92:404–11. doi:10.1016/0091-6749(93)90119-Z

39. van den Biggelaar AHJ, Rodrigues LC, van Ree R, van der Zee JS, Hoeksma-Kruize YCM, Souverijn JHM, et al. Long-term treatment of intestinal helminths increases mite skin-test reactivity in Gabonese schoolchildren. J Infect Dis (2004) 189:892–900. doi:10.1086/381767

40. Flohr C, Quinnell RJ, Britton J. Do helminth parasites protect against atopy and allergic disease? Clin Exp Allergy (2009) 39:20–32. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2222.2008.03134.x

41. Wördemann M, Diaz RJ, Heredia LM, Collado Madurga AM, Ruiz Espinosa A, Prado RC, et al. Association of atopy, asthma, allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, atopic dermatitis and intestinal helminth infections in Cuban children. Trop Med Int Health (2008) 13:180–6. doi:10.1111/j.1365-3156.2007.01988.x

42. Hagel I, Cabrera M, Hurtado MA, Sanchez P, Puccio F, Di Prisco MC, et al. Infection by Ascaris lumbricoides and bronchial hyper reactivity: an outstanding association in Venezuelan school children from endemic areas. Acta Trop (2007) 103:231–41. doi:10.1016/j.actatropica.2007.06.010

43. Radauer C, Bublin M, Wagner S, Mari A, Breiteneder H. Allergens are distributed into few protein families and possess a restricted number of biochemical functions. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2008) 121:847.e–52.e. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2008.01.025

44. Moneo I, Caballero ML, Gómez F, Ortega E, Alonso MJ. Isolation and characterization of a major allergen from the fish parasite Anisakis simplex. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2000) 106(Pt 1):177–82. doi:10.1067/mai.2000.106732

45. Pérez-Pérez J, Fernández-Caldas E, Marañón F, Sastre J, Bernal ML, Rodríguez J, et al. Molecular cloning of paramyosin, a new allergen of Anisakis simplex. Int Arch Allergy Immunol (2000) 123:120–9. doi:10.1159/000024442

46. Asturias JA, Eraso E, Moneo I, Martínez A. Is tropomyosin an allergen in Anisakis? Allergy (2000) 55:898–9. doi:10.1034/j.1398-9995.2000.00734.x

47. Moneo I, Caballero ML, González-Muñoz M, Rodríguez-Mahillo AI, Rodríguez-Perez R, Silva A. Isolation of a heat-resistant allergen from the fish parasite Anisakis simplex. Parasitol Res (2005) 96:285–9. doi:10.1007/s00436-005-1362-2

48. Kobayashi Y, Ishizaki S, Shimakura K, Nagashima Y, Shiomi K. Molecular cloning and expression of two new allergens from Anisakis simplex. Parasitol Res (2007) 100:1233–41. doi:10.1007/s00436-006-0396-4

49. Rodríguez E, Anadón AM, García-Bodas E, Romarís F, Iglesias R, Gárate T, et al. Novel sequences and epitopes of diagnostic value derived from the Anisakis simplex Ani s 7 major allergen. Allergy (2008) 63:219–25. doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.2007.01564.x

50. Rodriguez-Perez R, Moneo I, Rodriguez-Mahillo A, Caballero ML. Cloning and expression of Ani s 9, a new Anisakis simplex allergen. Mol Biochem Parasitol (2008) 159:92–7. doi:10.1016/j.molbiopara.2008.02.008

51. Caballero ML, Umpierrez A, Moneo I, Rodriguez-Perez R. Ani s 10, a new Anisakis simplex allergen: cloning and heterologous expression. Parasitol Int (2011) 60:209–12. doi:10.1016/j.parint.2011.01.003

52. Kobayashi Y, Ohsaki K, Ikeda K, Kakemoto S, Ishizaki S, Shimakura K, et al. Identification of novel three allergens from Anisakis simplex by chemiluminescent immunoscreening of an expression cDNA library. Parasitol Int (2011) 60:144–50. doi:10.1016/j.parint.2011.01.004

53. López I, Pardo MA. A phage display system for the identification of novel Anisakis simplex antigens. J Immunol Methods (2011) 373:247–51. doi:10.1016/j.jim.2011.08.009

54. Arrieta I, del Barrio M, Vidarte L, del Pozo V, Pastor C, Gonzalez-Cabrero J, et al. Molecular cloning and characterization of an IgE-reactive protein from Anisakis simplex: Ani s 1. Mol Biochem Parasitol (2000) 107:263–8. doi:10.1016/S0166-6851(00)00192-4

55. Webster M, Correa-Oliveira R, Gazzinelli G, Viana IR, Fraga LA, Silveira AM, et al. Factors affecting high and low human IgE responses to schistosome worm antigens in an area of Brazil endemic for Schistosoma mansoni and hookworm. Am J Trop Med Hyg (1997) 57:487–94.

56. Fitzsimmons CM, McBeath R, Joseph S, Jones FM, Walter K, Hoffmann KF, et al. Factors affecting human IgE and IgG responses to allergen-like Schistosoma mansoni antigens: molecular structure and patterns of in vivo exposure. Int Arch Allergy Immunol (2007) 142:40–50. doi:10.1159/000095997

57. Webster M, Fulford AJ, Braun G, Ouma JH, Kariuki HC, Havercroft JC, et al. Human immunoglobulin E responses to a recombinant 22.6-kilodalton antigen from Schistosoma mansoni adult worms are associated with low intensities of reinfection after treatment. Infect Immun (1996) 64:4042–6.

58. de Oliveira Fraga LA, Lamb EW, Moreno EC, Chatterjee M, Dvorák J, Delcroix M, et al. Rapid induction of IgE responses to a worm cysteine protease during murine pre-patent schistosome infection. BMC Immunol (2010) 11:56. doi:10.1186/1471-2172-11-56

59. Schramm G, Hamilton JV, Balog CI, Wuhrer M, Gronow A, Beckmann S, et al. Molecular characterisation of kappa-5, a major antigenic glycoprotein from Schistosoma mansoni eggs. Mol Biochem Parasitol (2009) 166:4–14. doi:10.1016/j.molbiopara.2009.02.003

60. Zhan B, Santiago H, Keegan B, Gillespie P, Xue J, Bethony J, et al. Fusion of Na-ASP-2 with human immunoglobulin Fcγ abrogates histamine release from basophils sensitized with anti-Na-ASP-2 IgE. Parasite Immunol (2012) 34:404–11. doi:10.1111/j.1365-3024.2012.01371.x

61. Pritchard DI, Brown A, Kasper G, McElroy P, Loukas A, Hewitt C, et al. A hookworm allergen which strongly resembles calreticulin. Parasite Immunol (1999) 21:439–50. doi:10.1046/j.1365-3024.1999.00238.x

62. Christie JF, Dunbar B, Kennedy MW. The ABA-1 allergen of the nematode Ascaris suum: epitope stability, mass spectrometry, and N-terminal sequence comparison with its homologue in Toxocara canis. Clin Exp Immunol (1993) 92:125–32. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2249.1993.tb05958.x

63. Acevedo N, Sánchez J, Erler A, Mercado D, Briza P, Kennedy M, et al. IgE cross-reactivity between Ascaris and domestic mite allergens: the role of tropomyosin and the nematode polyprotein ABA-1. Allergy (2009) 64:1635–43. doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.2009.02084.x

64. Acevedo N, Mohr J, Zakzuk J, Samonig M, Briza P, Erler A, et al. Proteomic and Immunochemical characterization of glutathione transferase as a new allergen of the nematode Ascaris lumbricoides. PLoS One (2013) 8:e78353. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0078353

65. Vuitton DA. Echinococcosis and allergy. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol (2004) 26:93–104. doi:10.1007/s12016-004-0004-2

66. Khabiri AR, Bagheri F, Assmar M, Siavashi MR. Analysis of specific IgE and IgG subclass antibodies for diagnosis of Echinococcus granulosus. Parasite Immunol (2006) 28:357–62. doi:10.1111/j.1365-3024.2006.00837.x

67. Ortona E, Vaccari S, Margutti P, Delunardo F, Rigano R, Profumo E, et al. Immunological characterization of Echinococcus granulosus cyclophilin, an allergen reactive with IgE and IgG4 from patients with cystic echinococcosis. Clin Exp Immunol (2002) 128:124–30. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2249.2002.01807.x

68. Ortona E, Margutti P, Delunardo F, Vaccari S, Riganò R, Profumo E, et al. Molecular and immunological characterization of the C-terminal region of a new Echinococcus granulosus Heat Shock Protein 70. Parasite Immunol (2003) 25:119–26. doi:10.1046/j.1365-3024.2003.00617.x

69. Ortona E, Margutti P, Vaccari S, Riganò R, Profumo E, Buttari B, et al. Elongation factor 1 beta/delta of Echinococcus granulosus and allergic manifestations in human cystic echinococcosis. Clin Exp Immunol (2001) 125:110–6. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2249.2001.01569.x

70. Sereda MJ, Hartmann S, Büttner DW, Volkmer R, Hovestädt M, Brattig N, et al. Characterization of the allergen filarial tropomyosin with an invertebrate specific monoclonal antibody. Acta Trop (2010) 116:61–7. doi:10.1016/j.actatropica.2010.05.010

71. Rathaur S, Fischer P, Domagalski M, Walter RD, Liebau E. Brugia malayi and Wuchereria bancrofti: gene comparison and recombinant expression of pi-class related glutathione S-transferases. Exp Parasitol (2003) 103:177–81. doi:10.1016/S0014-4894(03)00093-6

72. Krushna NSA, Shiny C, Dharanya S, Sindhu A, Aishwarya S, Narayanan RB. Immunolocalization and serum antibody responses to Brugia malayi pepsin inhibitor homolog (Bm-33). Microbiol Immunol (2009) 53:173–83. doi:10.1111/j.1348-0421.2009.00114.x

73. Mari A, Rasi C, Palazzo P, Scala E. Allergen databases: current status and perspectives. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep (2009) 9:376–83. doi:10.1007/s11882-009-0055-9

74. Marchler-Bauer A, Zheng C, Chitsaz F, Derbyshire MK, Geer LY, Geer RC, et al. CDD: conserved domains and protein three-dimensional structure. Nucleic Acids Res (2013) 41:D348–52. doi:10.1093/nar/gks1243

75. Punta M, Coggill PC, Eberhardt RY, Mistry J, Tate J, Boursnell C, et al. The Pfam protein families database. Nucleic Acids Res (2012) 40:D290–301. doi:10.1093/nar/gkr1065

76. Jenkins RE, Taylor MJ, Gilvary NJ, Bianco AE. Tropomyosin implicated in host protective responses to microfilariae in onchocerciasis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A (1998) 95:7550–5. doi:10.1073/pnas.95.13.7550

77. Santiago HC, Bennuru S, Boyd A, Eberhard M, Nutman TB. Structural and immunologic cross-reactivity among filarial and mite tropomyosin: implications for the hygiene hypothesis. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2011) 127:479–86. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2010.11.007

78. Santos ABR, Rocha GM, Oliver C, Ferriani VPL, Lima RC, Palma MS, et al. Cross-reactive IgE antibody responses to tropomyosins from Ascaris lumbricoides and cockroach. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2008) 121:1040.e–6.e. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2007.12.1147

79. Valmonte GR, Cauyan GA, Ramos JDA. IgE cross-reactivity between house dust mite allergens and Ascaris lumbricoides antigens. Asia Pac Allergy (2012) 2:35–44. doi:10.5415/apallergy.2012.2.1.35

80. Nieuwenhuizen NE, Lopata AL. Anisakis – a food-borne parasite that triggers allergic host defences. Int J Parasitol (2013) 43:1047–57. doi:10.1016/j.ijpara.2013.08.001

81. Steel C, Limberger RJ, McReynolds LA, Ottesen EA, Nutman TB. B cell responses to paramyosin. Isotypic analysis and epitope mapping of filarial paramyosin in patients with onchocerciasis. J Immunol (1990) 145:3917–23.

82. Kucik CJ, Martin GL, Sortor BV. Common intestinal parasites. Am Fam Physician (2004) 69:1161–8.

83. Guarneri F, Guarneri C, Benvenga S. Cross-reactivity of Anisakis simplex: possible role of Ani s 2 and Ani s 3. Int J Dermatol (2007) 46:146–50.

84. Diemert DJ, Pinto AG, Freire J, Jariwala A, Santiago H, Hamilton RG, et al. Generalized urticaria induced by the Na-ASP-2 hookworm vaccine: implications for the development of vaccines against helminths. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2012) 130:169.e–76.e. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2012.04.027

85. Tawe W, Pearlman E, Unnasch TR, Lustigman S. Angiogenic activity of Onchocerca volvulus recombinant proteins similar to vespid venom antigen 5. Mol Biochem Parasitol (2000) 109:91–9. doi:10.1016/S0166-6851(00)00231-0

86. Murray J, Gregory WF, Gomez-Escobar N, Atmadja AK, Maizels RM. Expression and immune recognition of Brugia malayi VAL-1, a homologue of vespid venom allergens and Ancylostoma secreted proteins. Mol Biochem Parasitol (2001) 118:89–96. doi:10.1016/S0166-6851(01)00374-7

87. Chalmers IW, McArdle AJ, Coulson RM, Wagner MA, Schmid R, Hirai H, et al. Developmentally regulated expression, alternative splicing and distinct sub-groupings in members of the Schistosoma mansoni venom allergen-like (SmVAL) gene family. BMC Genomics (2008) 9:89. doi:10.1186/1471-2164-9-89

88. Chen J, Hu X, He S, Wang L, Hu D, Wang X, et al. Expression and immune response analysis of Schistosoma japonicum VAL-1, a homologue of vespid venom allergens. Parasitol Res (2010) 106:1413–8. doi:10.1007/s00436-010-1817-y

89. Tsai IJ, Zarowiecki M, Holroyd N, Garciarrubio A, Sanchez-Flores A, Brooks KL, et al. The genomes of four tapeworm species reveal adaptations to parasitism. Nature (2013) 496:57–63. doi:10.1038/nature12031

90. Farias LP, Rodrigues D, Cunna V, Rofatto HK, Faquim-Mauro EL, Leite LCC. Schistosoma mansoni venom allergen like proteins present differential allergic responses in a murine model of airway inflammation. PLoS Negl Trop Dis (2012) 6:e1510. doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0001510

91. Subpipattana P, Grams R, Vichasri-Grams S. Analysis of a calcium-binding EF-hand protein family in Fasciola gigantica. Exp Parasitol (2012) 130:364–73. doi:10.1016/j.exppara.2012.02.005

92. Santiago HC, LeeVan E, Bennuru S, Ribeiro-Gomes F, Mueller E, Wilson M, et al. Molecular mimicry between cockroach and helminth glutathione S-transferases promotes cross-reactivity and cross-sensitization. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2012) 130:248.e–56.e. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2012.02.045

93. Kennedy MW. The nematode polyprotein allergens/antigens. Parasitol Today (2000) 16:373–80. doi:10.1016/S0169-4758(00)01743-9

94. Paxton WA, Yazdanbakhsh M, Kurniawan A, Partono F, Maizels RM, Selkirk ME. Primary structure of and immunoglobulin E response to the repeat subunit of gp15/400 from human lymphatic filarial parasites. Infect Immun (1993) 61:2827–33.

95. Orton SM, Arasu P, Hammerberg B. A novel gene from Brugia sp. that encodes a cytotoxic fatty acid binding protein allergen recognized by canine monoclonal IgE and serum IgE from infected dogs. J Parasitol (2007) 93:1378–87. doi:10.1645/GE-1217.1

96. Fitzsimmons CM, Dunne DW. Survival of the fittest: allergology or parasitology? Trends Parasitol (2009) 25:447–51. doi:10.1016/j.pt.2009.07.004

97. Shani N, Shani Z, Shoseyov O, Mruwat R, Shoseyov D. Oxidized cellulose binding to allergens with a carbohydrate-binding module attenuates allergic reactions. J Immunol (2011) 186:1240–7. doi:10.4049/jimmunol.1000640

98. Tarigan S, Huntley JF. Failure to protect goats following vaccination with soluble proteins of Sarcoptes scabiei: evidence for a role for IgE antibody in protection. Vet Parasitol (2005) 133:101–9. doi:10.1016/j.vetpar.2005.03.044

99. Traidl-Hoffmann C, Jakob T, Behrendt H. Determinants of allergenicity. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2009) 123(3):558–66. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2008.12.003

100. Bredehorst R, David K. What establishes a protein as an allergen? J Chromatogr B Biomed Sci Appl (2001) 756:33–40. doi:10.1016/S0378-4347(01)00069-X

101. Furmonaviciene R, Sutton BJ, Glaser F, Laughton CA, Jones N, Sewell HF, et al. An attempt to define allergen-specific molecular surface features: a bioinformatic approach. Bioinformatics (2005) 21:4201–4. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/bti700

102. Beezhold DH, Kostyal DA, Sussman GL. IgE epitope analysis of the hevein preprotein; a major latex allergen. Clin Exp Immunol (1997) 108:114–21. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2249.1997.d01-983.x

103. Bublin M, Radauer C, Knulst A, Wagner S, Scheiner O, Mackie AR, et al. Effects of gastrointestinal digestion and heating on the allergenicity of the kiwi allergens Act d 1, actinidin, and Act d 2, a thaumatin-like protein. Mol Nutr Food Res (2008) 52:1130–9. doi:10.1002/mnfr.200700167

104. Díaz-Perales A, Blanco C, Sánchez-Monge R, Varela J, Carrillo T, Salcedo G. Analysis of avocado allergen (Prs a 1) IgE-binding peptides generated by simulated gastric fluid digestion. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2003) 112:1002–7. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2003.07.006

105. Pastorello EA, Farioli L, Pravettoni V, Ortolani C, Fortunato D, Giuffrida MG, et al. Identification of grape and wine allergens as an endochitinase 4, a lipid-transfer protein, and a thaumatin. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2003) 111:350–9. doi:10.1067/mai.2003.35

106. O’Neil SE, Heinrich TK, Hales BJ, Hazell LA, Holt DC, Fischer K, et al. The chitinase allergens Der p 15 and Der p 18 from Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus. Clin Exp Allergy (2006) 36:831–9. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2222.2006.02497.x

107. Sánchez-Monge R, Blanco C, Perales AD, Collada C, Carrillo T, Aragoncillo C, et al. Class I chitinases, the panallergens responsible for the latex-fruit syndrome, are induced by ethylene treatment and inactivated by heating. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2000) 106:190–5. doi:10.1067/mai.2000.107599

108. Audicana MT, Ansotegui IJ, de Corres LF, Kennedy MW. Anisakis simplex: dangerous – dead and alive? Trends Parasitol (2002) 18:20–5. doi:10.1016/S1471-4922(01)02152-3

109. Audicana MT, Kennedy MW. Anisakis simplex: from obscure infectious worm to inducer of immune hypersensitivity. Clin Microbiol Rev (2008) 21:360–79. doi:10.1128/CMR.00012-07

110. Herbert CA, King CM, Ring PC, Holgate ST, Stewart GA, Thompson PJ, et al. Augmentation of permeability in the bronchial epithelium by the house dust mite allergen Der p1. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol (1995) 12:369–78. doi:10.1165/ajrcmb.12.4.7695916

111. Wan H, Winton HL, Soeller C, Tovey ER, Gruenert DC, Thompson PJ, et al. Der p 1 facilitates transepithelial allergen delivery by disruption of tight junctions. J Clin Invest (1999) 104:123–33. doi:10.1172/JCI5844

112. Falcone FH, Loukas A, Quinnell RJ, Pritchard DI. The innate allergenicity of helminth parasites. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol (2004) 26:61–72. doi:10.1385/CRIAI:26:1:61

113. Jenkins JA, Breiteneder H, Mills ENC. Evolutionary distance from human homologs reflects allergenicity of animal food proteins. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2007) 120:1399–405. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2007.08.019

114. Santiago H, da C, Bennuru S, Ribeiro JMC, Nutman TB. Structural differences between human proteins and aero- and microbial allergens define allergenicity. PLoS One (2012) 7:e40552. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0040552

115. Emanuelsson C, Spangfort MD. Allergens as eukaryotic proteins lacking bacterial homologues. Mol Immunol (2007) 44:3256–60. doi:10.1016/j.molimm.2007.01.019

116. Arnon R, Van Regenmortel MH. Structural basis of antigenic specificity and design of new vaccines. FASEB J (1992) 6:3265–74.

117. Valenta R, Ball T, Focke M, Linhart B, Mothes N, Niederberger V, et al. Immunotherapy of allergic disease. Adv Immunol (2004) 82:105–53. doi:10.1016/S0065-2776(04)82003-0

118. Fulford AJ, Butterworth AE, Ouma JH, Sturrock RF. A statistical approach to schistosome population dynamics and estimation of the life-span of Schistosoma mansoni in man. Parasitology (1995) 110:307–16. doi:10.1017/S0031182000080896

119. Fitzsimmons CM, Jones FM, Stearn A, Chalmers IW, Hoffmann KF, Wawrzyniak J, et al. The Schistosoma mansoni tegumental-allergen-like (TAL) protein family: influence of developmental expression on human IgE responses. PLoS Negl Trop Dis (2012) 6:e1593. doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0001593

120. Hawdon JM, Hotez PJ. Hookworm: developmental biology of the infectious process. Curr Opin Genet Dev (1996) 6:618–23. doi:10.1016/S0959-437X(96)80092-X

121. Hamann KJ, Barker RL, Loegering DA, Gleich GJ. Comparative toxicity of purified human eosinophil granule proteins for newborn larvae of Trichinella spiralis. J Parasitol (1987) 73:523–9. doi:10.2307/3282130

122. Tschopp CM, Spiegl N, Didichenko S, Lutmann W, Julius P, Virchow JC, et al. Granzyme B, a novel mediator of allergic inflammation: its induction and release in blood basophils and human asthma. Blood (2006) 108:2290–9. doi:10.1182/blood-2006-03-010348

123. Bell A. Antimalarial peptides: the long and the short of it. Curr Pharm Des (2011) 17:2719–31. doi:10.2174/138161211797416057

124. Tanaka T, Rahman MM, Battur B, Boldbaatar D, Liao M, Umemiya-Shirafuji R, et al. Parasiticidal activity of human alpha-defensin-5 against Toxoplasma gondii. In vitro Cell Dev Biol Anim (2010) 46:560–5. doi:10.1007/s11626-009-9271-9

125. Tsuji N, Battsetseg B, Boldbaatar D, Miyoshi T, Xuan X, Oliver JH, et al. Babesial vector tick defensin against Babesia sp. parasites. Infect Immun (2007) 75:3633–40. doi:10.1128/IAI.00256-07

126. Madison MN, Kleshchenko YY, Nde PN, Simmons KJ, Lima MF, Villalta F. Human defensin alpha-1 causes Trypanosoma cruzi membrane pore formation and induces DNA fragmentation, which leads to trypanosome destruction. Infect Immun (2007) 75:4780–91. doi:10.1128/IAI.00557-07

127. Magalhaes T, Oliveira IF, Melo-Santos MAV, Oliveira CMF, Lima CA, Ayres CFJ. Expression of defensin, cecropin, and transferrin in Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) infected with Wuchereria bancrofti (Spirurida: Onchocercidae), and the abnormal development of nematodes in the mosquito. Exp Parasitol (2008) 120:364–71. doi:10.1016/j.exppara.2008.09.003

128. Larenas-Linnemann D, Cox LS. European allergen extract units and potency: review of available information. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol (2008) 100:137–45. doi:10.1016/S1081-1206(10)60422-X

129. Lidholm J, Ballmer-Weber BK, Mari A, Vieths S. Component-resolved diagnostics in food allergy. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol (2006) 6:234–40. doi:10.1097/01.all.0000225166.90768.d6

130. Ferrer M, Sanz ML, Sastre J, Bartra J, del Cuvillo A, Montoro J, et al. Molecular diagnosis in allergology: application of the microarray technique. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol (2009) 19(Suppl 1):19–24.

131. Wolthers OD. Component-resolved diagnosis in pediatrics. ISRN Pediatr (2012) 2012:806920. doi:10.5402/2012/806920

132. Kelley LA, Sternberg MJ. Protein structure prediction on the Web: a case study using the Phyre server. Nat Protoc (2009) 4:363–371. doi:10.1038/nprot.2009.2

Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Received: 15 November 2013; accepted: 03 February 2014; published online: 14 February 2014.

Citation: Fitzsimmons CM, Falcone FH and Dunne DW (2014) Helminth allergens, parasite-specific IgE, and its protective role in human immunity. Front. Immunol. 5:61. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2014.00061

This article was submitted to Immunotherapies and Vaccines, a section of the journal Frontiers in Immunology.

Copyright © 2014 Fitzsimmons, Falcone and Dunne. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

MINI REVIEW ARTICLE
published: 22 April 2014
doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2014.00179

Fish allergens at a glance: variable allergenicity of parvalbumins, the major fish allergens

Annette Kuehn[1]*, Ines Swoboda[2], Karthik Arumugam[1], Christiane Hilger[1] and François Hentges1,3

1 Laboratory of Immunogenetics and Allergology, Public Research Centre for Health (CRP-Santé), Luxembourg, Luxembourg

2 Molecular Biotechnology Section, University of Applied Sciences, Vienna, Austria

3 Unit of Immunology and Allergology, Centre Hospitalier de Luxembourg, Luxembourg, Luxembourg

Edited by:

Kendall A. Smith, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, USA

Reviewed by:

Richard E. Goodman, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, USA
Habib Chabane, Centre Hospitalier Delafontaine, France

*Correspondence:

Annette Kuehn, Laboratory of Immunogenetics and Allergology, Public Research Centre for Health (CRP-Santé), 84 Val Fleuri, Luxembourg L-1526, Luxembourg
e-mail: annette.kuehn@crp-sante.lu

Fish is a common trigger of severe, food-allergic reactions. Only a limited number of proteins induce specific IgE-mediated immune reactions. The major fish allergens are the parvalbumins. They are members of the calcium-binding EF-hand protein family characterized by a conserved protein structure. They represent highly cross-reactive allergens for patients with specific IgE to conserved epitopes. These patients might experience clinical reactions with various fish species. On the other hand, some individuals have IgE antibodies directed against unique, species-specific parvalbumin epitopes, and these patients show clinical symptoms only with certain fish species. Furthermore, different parvalbumin isoforms and isoallergens are present in the same fish and might display variable allergenicity. This was shown for salmon homologs, where only a single parvalbumin (beta-1) isoform was identified as allergen in specific patients. In addition to the parvalbumins, several other fish proteins, enolases, aldolases, and fish gelatin, seem to be important allergens. New clinical and molecular insights advanced the knowledge and understanding of fish allergy in the last years. These findings were useful for the advancement of the IgE-based diagnosis and also for the management of fish allergies consisting of advice and treatment of fish-allergic patients.

Keywords: allergenicity, fish allergy, fish gelatin, food allergy, isoallergens, isoforms, monosensitivity, parvalbumin

FISH ALLERGY

PREVALENCE

In human diet, fish is a valuable source of essential amino acids, polyunsaturated fatty acids, and lipid-soluble vitamins. Although the fish consumption in European countries is quite stable, the global demand for fish and fish products is increasing still steadily (1). While many literature sources indicate that allergies to fish are on the rise, the actual prevalence is not well established as most studies are based on self-reported food allergies (2). It is estimated that up to 0.2% of the general population is affected by fish allergy (3, 4). However, the exposure to fish is an important factor determining the reported prevalence of fish allergy. Therefore, the prevalence of fish allergy is greater in countries with high fish consumption and fish-processing industries (5).

CLINICAL FEATURES

Fish allergy is a pathophysiological, IgE-mediated immune response to specific fish proteins. Patients become sensitized by allergen exposure via the gastro-intestinal tract during ingestion, which is the major route of sensitization, or via the respiratory system by fish aeroallergens or skin contact (6–9). Common clinical manifestations are oral allergy syndrome, rhinitis, abdominal pain, diarrhea, urticaria, angioedema, asthma, and in severe cases, even life-threatening anaphylaxis (10–12). Fish aeroallergens can be important triggers of atopic dermatitis (13). There are only a few clinical studies addressing minimal eliciting doses of fish allergy. However, already low milligram amounts of fish seem to be sufficient to trigger allergic symptoms in sensitized patients (14). Cross-reactivity among fish species has been commonly reported for fish allergy (11, 15, 16). This clinical cross-reactivity seems to be even more pronounced between closely related fishes. On the other hand, it has been shown that even highly fish-sensitized patients can tolerate certain fish species, such as tuna (17, 18). In addition, in case reports, clinical monosensitivity to single fishes has been proven for sole, swordfish, pangasius/tilapia, tuna/marlin, and more recently, for salmon and salmonid fishes (19–26). So far, no cross-reactivity has been shown for fish and other seafood allergens while in some cases, a co-sensitization to both allergen sources might occur (27).

DIAGNOSIS AND PATIENT CARE

The diagnostic procedure is based on four main pillars: the patient’s clinical history, in vivo analysis of skin reactivity, in vitro quantification of specific serum IgE and, in selected cases, oral provocation challenges. A broad diversity of fishes is globally consumed but only a limited number of commercial extracts are available for skin testing. Therefore, fresh or processed fish is commonly used for this in vivo analysis. However, the predictive value of skin tests is low (28). For in vitro analysis of specific IgE levels, the ImmunoCAP system (ThermoScientific) offers a wide panel of fish extracts. Meanwhile, two recombinant parvalbumins from carp and cod are available for this diagnostic assay. The predictive value of fish extract-specific IgE measurements is not well established, but a high titer of specific IgE (20 kUA/L) was reported to predict an allergy to cod with a likelihood of 95% (29).

Other adverse reactions might be misdiagnosed as fish allergy (30). Allergy-like symptoms occur upon ingestion of histamine-contaminated, spoiled fish (“scombroid fish poisoning”) (31). Also, consumption of fish contaminated with the parasite Anisakis simplex (herring worm) provokes acute allergic manifestations caused by IgE-mediated sensitization to Anisakis allergens (27, 32).

To avoid severe reactions, the management of fish allergy relies on the elimination of each fish product from the diet of the sensitized patient. In some cases, it has been reported that patients may lose their sensitivity upon eliminating diet (33, 34). The therapeutic desensitization to fish has been reported only for a single case (35). The development of specific immunotherapeutics based on hypoallergenic variants of parvalbumins, the major fish allergens, is the focus of ongoing studies (36, 37). Research on a primary strategy for the prevention of fish allergy is very limited. The current recommendations of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology also do not suggest a general, delayed introduction of fish in the diet of children (38).

FISH ALLERGENS

FOOD ALLERGENS

The few foods that are responsible for causing most allergic reactions are milk, eggs, peanuts, tree nuts, fish, shellfish, soy, and wheat. They contain potent food allergens (39). Their allergenic potency has been related to specific protein features. These allergens are highly abundant in the food sources, and moreover, they possess a high stability toward food processing and digestion (40). The structural stability has been allocated to different protein characteristics such as intrinsic ligand binding and intramolecular disulfide bonds (41). Some food allergens form protein aggregates of high stability. Although some food allergens are sensitive to gastric and intestinal digestion, degradation fragments are still recognized by specific IgE antibodies (42). Food allergens of animal origin are mainly grouped into three protein superfamilies such as caseins, tropomyosins, and EF-hand proteins (43).

FISH PARVALBUMINS

Most fish parvalbumins belong to the beta-subtype while the alpha-subtype is predominantly found in other organisms. Beta-parvalbumin has first been identified as fish allergen in Baltic cod (44). Later on, the importance of this protein as the fish panallergen was confirmed for a wide range of commonly consumed species such as salmon, carp, mackerel, tuna, and pilchard (45–49). Parvalbumins are highly stable, low-molecular-weight proteins (10–12 kDa), which are very common in fish muscle (5). The muscle of bony fishes is composed of two tissues, the light and dark muscle differing by their physiological function and composition (50). The parvalbumin expression is considerably higher in light than in dark muscle tissue (51). In contrast to most bony fishes, pelagic fishes such as tuna have mainly dark muscles of low parvalbumin content (48). This complies with the low allergenicity reported for tuna which is even used in canned preparations as matrix for food challenges (17). Overall, the parvalbumin content differs considerably in fish species and the different amount of parvalbumins correlates with the variable allergenicity of fishes (52–54). It has been shown that the parvalbumin level is up to 100-times higher in carp than in mackerel or tuna muscle. In addition, physical and chemical effects of food processing may alter the allergenicity of fish in food preparations by parvalbumin degradation or oligomerization which may decrease or increase the number of IgE epitopes (55).

Parvalbumins belong to the family of EF-hand proteins. As such, they contain specific EF-hand motifs composed of 12 residues of long loops which are involved in the binding of divalent metal ions. The N-terminal EF-hand site is a non-functional domain while the two other EF-hand motifs are binding calcium and magnesium ions (56). The physiological role of muscle parvalbumins is related to the regulation of the intracellular calcium concentration during muscle relaxation (57). Upon ion binding and ion release, the beta-parvalbumin structure is subjected to a global rearrangement indicating a general flexibility of the EF-hand domains (58). The apo-protein, which is calcium-depleted parvalbumin, has a reduced ability to bind IgE antibodies from fish-allergic patients (59). Consequently, these calcium-binding protein regions were attributed to conformational B-cell epitopes (60).

As of today, the official database of allergens contains 21 parvalbumins from 12 fish species[1] (Table 1) (61). The Allergome database lists far more than 100 entries for fish parvalbumins and their isoforms/isoallergens[2] (62). This much higher number arises from a compilation of homolog, potentially allergenic molecules, in addition to proteins of proven allergenicity. Parvalbumin has been defined as the major fish allergen as a majority of fish-allergic patients have IgE antibodies reacting to this muscle protein (63–65). However, the prevalence of parvalbumin-specific IgE antibodies seems to vary across different patient populations. For example, fish-allergic patients with sensitization to tropical fishes react mostly to allergens other than parvalbumins (66, 67). Generally, the high clinical cross-reactivity among fishes has been attributed to cross-reacting IgE antibodies recognizing parvalbumins from several species (68). Recently, clinical monosensitivity to salmonid fishes has been linked to salmonid parvalbumin-specific IgE antibodies suggesting that cross-reactivity among fish parvalbumins may be restricted to these closely related fishes (23, 25).

Table 1 | Entries of official fish allergens by the International Union of Immunological Societies Allergen Nomenclature Subcommittee database (www.allergen.org).

FISH ENOLASES AND ALDOLASES

Initially, IgE reactivity to fish beta-enolase and aldolase had been described in single fishes (69–71). In 2013, 50 kDa enolases and 40 kDa aldolases were identified as important fish allergens in cod, salmon, and tuna (Table 1) (72). Both enzymes are abundant in the fish muscle as they are involved in metabolic glycolysis, the sugar degradation during physiological production of energy.

In a recent study, IgE binding to enolases and aldolases was detected in a high number of fish-allergic patients (72). Most of the enolase/aldolase-positive patients also had IgE antibodies to parvalbumin. Both allergens were positive in the mediator release assay using rat basophilic leukemia cells expressing the human high-affinity IgE receptor passively sensitized with patient sera. They were found to be sensitive to heat treatment. Their relevance as food allergens is still not well understood especially in parvalbumin-negative patients.

FISH GELATIN

The relevance of fish gelatin as a food allergen has been controversially discussed for many years (4). Fish gelatin is commonly used in food and pharmaceutical products replacing mammalian gelatins (73).

Originally, IgE binding to fish collagen had been shown in fish-allergic patients (74, 75). Later, the prevalence of fish gelatin allergy was addressed in single clinical studies (76, 77). In one study, skin prick tests were positive in 3 of 30 cod-allergic patients, while food challenges were positive in one of the three tested patients. Also, its potency as a food allergen was shown in a case report of severe anaphylaxis upon ingestion of sweets containing several grams of fish gelatin (78). No cross-reactivity of mammalian and fish gelatin has been reported so far. Another risk factor of fish gelatin is a potential contamination with fish parvalbumin as it is produced from fish as a natural source. In fact, parvalbumin traces were detected in isinglass, a fish collagen-based food supplement (79).

OTHER IgE-REACTIVE FISH PROTEINS

In the past decades, numerous studies reported allergens different from parvalbumin which were specified by their molecular weight or identified by other methods. Although most studies showed IgE reactivity to these proteins, the relevance of these potential allergens was not addressed. Several allergens (63 kDa protein, further IgE-reactive proteins) were described for cod while some were identified as parvalbumin oligomers (80). Furthermore, allergens were identified in swordfish (25 kDa), eel/eelpout (40 kDa), snapper (35–90 kDa), tuna/marlin (94–105 kDa), scad (46–50 kDa), tropical fishes (29–54 kDa), and pangasius/tilapia (18–45 kDa) (20–22, 64, 66, 81, 82). Potential allergens of known identity were found in cod (aldehyde phosphate isomerase), salmon (triose-phosphate isomerase, fructose-bis-phosphate isomerase, serum albumin), and tuna (creatine kinase, beta-enolase) (70, 83, 84).

Two further fish allergens have been registered by the IUIS-allergen database (Table 1). Food allergy to fish roe has been addressed in a few studies so far. Vitellogenin, a fish yolk protein, has been identified as a food allergen in caviar from different fishes (85, 86). In 2013, tropomyosin, a filamentous muscle protein, was purified, cloned, and identified as a fish allergen in tilapia-sensitized patients (87). This tilapia allergen showed high homology (88%) to the human homolog. It was suggested that it may be involved in autoimmune reaction of inflammatory bowel disease as a significant proportion of the patients with IgE to tropomyosin suffered from this autoimmune disease.

ALLERGENICITY OF PARVALBUMINS

During last decades, parvalbumins, enolases, aldolases, and fish gelatin have been identified as allergenic fish proteins. Specific properties have been attributed to common food allergens such as resistance toward conditions of the gastrointestinal tract and influences by food processing conditions (88). So far, only the allergenicity of parvalbumins has been characterized in more detail as to their allergenicity while consolidated findings still need to be generated for the other allergens.

PARVALBUMINS OF THE ALPHA- AND BETA-LINEAGE

Parvalbumins have been classified into two phylogenetic lineages, alpha and beta subtype. Their isoelectric points (alpha, pI > 5.0; beta, pI < 4.5) and the other multiple characteristics of the primary protein structure are different (89, 90). Generally, parvalbumins occur in various organs such as the central nervous system and the muscles (56). In muscles, both subtypes have been detected in amphibian tissues while only the alpha-subtype has been reported in mammalian and avian muscles (91, 92). Cartilaginous fish muscles express alpha-parvalbumins whereas the beta-homolog is found in muscle tissue of bony fishes (93). So far, the potency as important food allergens has been shown only for fish beta-parvalbumins. Despite their overall structural similarity to beta-homologs, alpha-parvalbumins are generally considered as non-allergenic proteins (43). Indeed, parvalbumins of the alpha-lineage have been described only as frog meat allergens (94). However, IgE cross-reactivity has also been reported between homologs from fish and frog in a population of fish-sensitized patients (95). In 2011, chicken alpha-parvalbumin has been reported as a poultry allergen in chicken meat allergy (96). Interestingly, IgE recognition of both fish and avian homologs was found in one case study while cross-reactivity was not detected in another clinical case (97, 98). However, the sequence identity between fish parvalbumins and homologs from mammals and birds is low (<55%) so that IgE cross-reactivity seems to be unlikely.

Recent classification by structural, biochemical, and phylogenetic analysis assigned alpha-parvalbumins into a common cluster together with higher vertebrate, including human proteins while beta-subtypes form a separate, only remotely related cluster of parvalbumins which might explain the variable allergenicity of both lineages (99, 100).

ANTIGENIC DETERMINANTS OF PARVALBUMIN

The amino acid sequence identities of fish parvalbumins vary substantially (55–95%) but high structural similarity has been reported as a common protein characteristic (101). IgE-binding epitopes were suggested to be located in highly conserved, calcium-binding regions of the molecule. Indeed, reduced IgE binding was found for parvalbumin mutants with single amino acid modifications in calcium-binding motifs (60). The analysis of human B-cell epitopes has only been addressed so far in a few parvalbumins namely allergens from cod, carp, mackerel, and salmon (25, 102–104).

Both linear and conformational epitopes were found in these studies but overall, non-plausible peptide pattern was found to define a common IgE-binding region of fish parvalbumins. It seems that B-cell epitopes are distributed over the whole parvalbumin primary structure. A possible explanation might be the polyclonal B-cell response in fish-allergic patients, which is even more stimulated by individual’s eating habits (e.g., canned, fried, smoked fish) leading to a high variety of exposed allergen forms such as native, modified, or degraded parvalbumins from different species.

PARVALBUMIN ISOFORMS OF VARIABLE ALLERGENICITY

For most patients, clinical cross-reactivity among fish species was postulated as a specific feature of fish allergy. Although single clinical reports showed true monosensitivity to single fishes, there was no allergen-based explanation for these observations. Only recently, the species-specific sensitization was attributed to the presence of IgE antibodies selectively recognizing a single salmonid parvalbumin isoallergen (beta-1 parvalbumin) (25). These findings may allow two important conclusions concerning the allergenicity of parvalbumins.

First, parvalbumins from different fishes might vary by their allergenic potential. This might be explained by the specific sensitization of the individual patient, which results from the clinical history (eating habits, age of onset of fish allergy).

Second, the allergenicity of parvalbumin isoforms/isoallergens from the same fish might be variable, as reported for salmon allergens. In fact, fishes express often a high number of parvalbumins such as that reported for carp and catfish (105, 106). These isoforms seem to play a physiological role in the fish muscle adaptation to developmental and environmental changes. In the same fish, parvalbumins differing by sequence microheterogeneity (sequence identity >90%) have been reported (99). It is conceivable that these highly identical isoforms might be of variable allergenicity. For Bet v 1, the major birch pollen allergen, a number of isoforms with different allergenic properties were isolated (107). Several allergenic parvalbumins have been identified in commonly consumed fish, cod (beta-1, beta-2), salmon (beta-1, beta-2), and herring (beta-1, beta-2, beta-3) (5). During studies of monosensitivity to salmonid fishes, different antigenic regions were assumed but only a single epitope was defined as a species-specific allergy marker (23, 25). This unique epitope was localized on a single isoform, the beta-1 salmon parvalbumin. For a patient with documented monosensitivity to salmonid fishes, we could confirm a single region from salmon and trout as species-specific parvalbumin epitope (“allergenic peptide”; Figure 1). This antigenic region was located on the parvalbumin surface and was unique when compared with different homologs from other fish species. The allergenic region matched with the IgE-binding epitope identified by a subsequent study using a peptide-based microarray assay (25). Studies with further sera from patients with specific sensitizations are required to demonstrate the existence of antigenic parvalbumin regions linked to specific clinical phenotypes. A recent study showed that 9 out of 62 fish-allergic patients (15%) experienced clinical reactions with salmonid fishes only (72). This suggests the conclusions that the prevalence of clinically salmon-monosensitized patients is higher than previously assumed.

FIGURE 1 | Comparison of salmon (X97824, X97825), trout (FN544258, FN544259), and carp (P02618; 4cpv) parvalbumins. (A) Both salmonid beta-1 parvalbumins sequences differ from their homologs in the N-terminal third of the protein which is not involved in calcium binding. The allergenic peptide is specifically recognized by IgE from a patient monosensitized to salmonid fishes. Gray, identical residues; red, variable residues. (B) Both Ribbon and surface models show that the allergenic peptide is localized on the surface of salmon and trout beta-1 parvalbumins. Blue, calcium-binding regions; red, IgE epitope.

CONCLUSION

During recent decades, important insights into clinical and allergen-based features were gained for fish allergy: the variable allergenicity among salmon parvalbumins (beta-1, beta-2) was shown, in addition, important new fish allergens (enolase, aldolase, fish gelatin) were identified. These findings will help to develop new immunotherapeutic strategies, but they have also shown that the clinical picture of fish allergy is more complex than anticipated. New molecules need to be implemented in IgE-based routine assays to advance patient diagnosis and advice.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

All authors have contributed to the conception, design, and drafting of the paper.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Declaration of all sources of funding: this work has been granted by the Ministry of Research, Luxembourg.

REFERENCES

1. Failler P, Van der Walle G, Lecrivain N, Himbes A, Lewins R. Future Prospects for Fish and Fishery Products, European Overview. FAO Fisheries Circular No. 972/4, Part 1 (2007). 204 p.

2. Cianferoni A, Spergel JM. Food allergy: review, classification and diagnosis. Allergol Int (2009) 58:457–66. doi:10.2332/allergolint.09-RAI-0138

3. Rona RJ, Keil T, Summer C, Gislason D, Zuidmeer L, Sodergren E, et al. The prevalence of food allergy: a meta-analysis. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2007) 120:638–46. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2007.05.026

4. Taylor SL, Kabourek JL, Hefle SL. Fish allergy: fish and products thereof. J Food Sci (2004) 69:75–80. doi:10.1111/j.1750-3841.2004.tb18022.x

5. Sharp MF, Lopata AL. Fish allergy: in review. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol (2013). doi:10.1007/s12016-013-8363-1

6. Jeebhay MF, Robins TG, Seixas N, Baatjies R, George DA, Rusford E, et al. Environmental exposure characterization of fish processing workers. Ann Occup Hyg (2005) 49:423–37. doi:10.1093/annhyg/meh113

7. Pascual CY, Crespo JF, Dominguez Noche C, Ojeda I, Ortega N, Esteban MM. IgE-binding proteins in fish and fish steam. Monogr Allergy (1996) 32:174–80.

8. Seitz CS, Bröcker EB, Trautmann A. Occupational allergy due to seafood delivery: case report. J Occup Med Toxicol (2008) 3:11–3. doi:10.1186/1745-6673-3-11

9. Taylor SL, Gendel SM, Houben GF, Julien E. The key events dose-response framework: a foundation for examining variability in elicitation thresholds for food allergens. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr (2009) 49:729–39. doi:10.1080/10408390903098707

10. Bock SA, Munoz-Furlong A, Sampson HA. Fatalities due to anaphylactic reactions to food. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2001) 107:191–3. doi:10.1067/mai.2001.112031

11. Helbling A, Haydet R, McCants ML, Musmand JJ, El-Dahr J, Lehrer SB. Fish allergy: is cross-reactivity among fish species relevant? Double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge studies of fish-allergic patients. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol (1999) 83:517–23. doi:10.1016/S1081-1206(10)62862-1

12. Sicherer SH, Munoz-Furlong A, Sampson HA. Dose-response in double-blind, placebo-controlled oral food challenges in children with atopic dermatitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2000) 105:582–6. doi:10.1067/mai.2000.104941

13. Molkhou P. La dermatite atopique (DA) et l’allergie alimentaire (AA) en 2008. J Pediatr Pueric (2008) 22:5–13. doi:10.1016/j.jpp.2008.12.001

14. Untersmayr E, Vestergaard H, Malling HJ, Jensen LB, Platzer MH, Boltz-Nitulescu G, et al. Incomplete digestion of codfish represents a risk factor for anaphylaxis in patients with allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2007) 119:711–7. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2006.10.039

15. De Martino M, Novembre E, Galli L, de Marco A, Botarelli P, Marano E, et al. Allergy to different fish species in cod-allergic children: in vivo and in vitro studies. J Allergy Clin Immunol (1990) 86:909–14. doi:10.1016/S0091-6749(05)80154-X

16. Sicherer SH, Sampson HA. Food allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2010) 125:116–25. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2009.08.028

17. Bernhisel-Broadbent J, Strause D, Sampson HA. Fish hypersensitivity. II. Clinical relevance of altered fish allergenicity caused by various preparation methods. J Allergy Clin Immunol (1992) 90:622–9. doi:10.1016/0091-6749(92)90135-O

18. Pascual CY, Reche M, Fiandor A, Valbuena T, Cuevas T, Martin-Esteban MM. Fish allergy in childhood. Pediatr Allergy Immunol (2008) 19:573–9. doi:10.1111/j.1399-3038.2008.00822.x

19. Asero R, Mistrello G, Roncarolo D, Casarini M, Falagiani P. True monosensitivity to a tropical sole. Allergy (1999) 54:1228–9. doi:10.1034/j.1398-9995.1999.00359.x

20. Ebo DG, Kuehn A, Bridts CH, Hilger C, Hentges F, Stevens WJ. Monosensitivity to pangasius and tilapia caused by allergens other than parvalbumin. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol (2010) 20:84–8.

21. Kelso JM, Jones RT, Yunginger JW. Monospecific allergy to swordfish. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol (1996) 77:227–8. doi:10.1016/S1081-1206(10)63260-7

22. Kondo Y, Komatsubara R, Nakajima Y, Yasuda T, Kakami M, Tsuge I, et al. Parvalbumin is not responsible for cross-reactivity between tuna and marlin: a case report. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2006) 118:1382–3. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2006.07.047

23. Kuehn A, Hutt-Kempf E, Hilger C, Hentges F. Clinical monosensitivity to salmonid fish linked to specific IgE-epitopes on salmon and trout beta-parvalbumins. Allergy (2011) 66:299–301. doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.2010.02463.x

24. Peñas E, Uberti F, Baviera G, Di Lorenzo C, Restani P. Clinical monosensitivity to salmon and rainbow trout: a case report. Pediatr Allergy Immunol (2013) 25:98–100. doi:10.1111/pai.12150

25. Perez-Gordo M, Lin J, Bardina L, Pastor-Vargas C, Cases B, Vivanco F, et al. Epitope mapping of Atlantic salmon major allergen by peptide microarray immunoassay. Int Arch Allergy Immunol (2012) 157:31–40. doi:10.1159/000324677

26. Vázquez-Cortés S, Nuñez-Acevedo B, Jimeno-Nogales L, Ledesma A, Fernández-Rivas M. Selective allergy to the Salmonidae fish family: a selective parvalbumin epitope? Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol (2012) 108:62–3. doi:10.1016/j.anai.2011.10.006

27. Lopata AL, Lehrer SB. New insights into seafood allergy. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol (2009) 9:270–7. doi:10.1097/ACI.0b013e32832b3e6f

28. Lee LA, Burks AW. Food allergies: prevalence, molecular characterization, and treatment/prevention strategies. Annu Rev Nutr (2006) 26:539–65. doi:10.1146/annurev.nutr.26.061505.111211

29. Sampson HA. Utility of food-specific IgE concentrations in predicting symptomatic food allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2001) 107:891–6. doi:10.1067/mai.2001.114708

30. Attaran RR, Probst F. Histamine fish poisoning: a common but frequently misdiagnosed condition. Emerg Med J (2002) 19:474–5. doi:10.1136/emj.19.5.474

31. McLauchlin J, Little CL, Grant KA, Mithani V. Scombrotoxic fish poisoning. J Public Health (2006) 28:61–2. doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdi063

32. Valls A, Pascual CY, Martín Esteban M. Anisakis allergy: an update. Rev Fr Allergol (2005) 45:108–13. doi:10.1097/ACI.0b013e3283373bd0

33. Pite H, Prates S, Borrego LM, Matos V, Loureiro V, Leiria-Pinto P. Resolution of IgE-mediated fish allergy. Allergol Immunopathol (2012) 40:195–7. doi:10.1016/j.aller.2011.03.004

34. Solensky R. Resolution of fish allergy: a case report. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol (2003) 91:411–2. doi:10.1016/S1081-1206(10)61690-0

35. Casimir G, Cuvelier P, Allard S, Duchateau J. Life-threatening fish allergy successfully treated with immunotherapy. Pediatr Allergy Immunol (1997) 8:103–5. doi:10.1111/j.1399-3038.1997.tb00152.x

36. Swoboda I, Balic N, Klug C, Focke M, Weber M, Spitzauer S, et al. A general strategy for the generation of hypoallergenic molecules for the immunotherapy of fish allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2013) 132:979–81. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2013.04.027

37. Zuidmeer-Jongejan L, Fernandez-Rivas M, Poulsen LK, Neubauer A, Asturias J, Blom L, et al. FAST: towards safe and effective subcutaneous immunotherapy of persistent life-threatening food allergies. Clin Transl Allergy (2012) 2:5. doi:10.1186/2045-7022-2-5

38. Fleischer DM, Spergel JM, Assa’ad AH, Pongracic JA. Primary prevention of allergic disease through nutritional interventions. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract (2013) 1:29–36. doi:10.1016/j.jaip.2012.09.003

39. Sicherer SH, Sampson HA. 9. Food allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2006) 117:470–5. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2005.05.048

40. Bannon GA. What makes a food protein an allergen? Curr Allergy Asthma Rep (2004) 4:43–6. doi:10.1007/s11882-004-0042-0

41. Breiteneder H, Mills EN. Molecular properties of food allergens. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2005) 115:14–23. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2004.10.022

42. Moreno FJ. Gastrointestinal digestion of food allergens: effect on their allergenicity. Biomed Pharmacother (2007) 61:50–60. doi:10.1016/j.biopha.2006.10.005

43. Radauer C, Bublin M, Wagner S, Mari A, Breiteneder H. Allergens are distributed into few protein families and possess a restricted number of biochemical functions. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2008) 121:847–52. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2008.01.025

44. Aas K, Elsayed SM. Characterization of a major allergen (cod). Effect of enzymic hydrolysis on the allergenic activity. J Allergy (1969) 44:333–43. doi:10.1016/0021-8707(69)90025-2

45. Beale JE, Jeebhay MF, Lopata AL. Characterisation of purified parvalbumin from five fish species and nucleotide sequencing of this major allergen from Pacific pilchard, Sardinops sagax. Mol Immunol (2009) 46:2985–93. doi:10.1016/j.molimm.2009.06.018

46. Bugajska-Schretter A, Pastore A, Vangelista L, Rumpold H, Valenta R, Spitzauer S. Molecular and immunological characterization of carp parvalbumin, a major fish allergen. Int Arch Allergy Immunol (1999) 118:306–8. doi:10.1159/000024111

47. Hamada Y, Tanaka H, Ishizaki S, Ishida M, Nagashima Y, Shiomi K. Purification, reactivity with IgE and cDNA cloning of parvalbumin as the major allergen of mackerels. Food Chem Toxicol (2003) 41:1149–56. doi:10.1016/S0278-6915(03)00074-7

48. Lim DL, Neo KH, Goh DL, Shek LP, Lee BW. Missing parvalbumin: implications in diagnostic testing for tuna allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2005) 115:874–5. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2004.12.1117

49. Lindstrom CD, van Do T, Hordvik I, Endresen C, Elsayed S. Cloning of two distinct cDNAs encoding parvalbumin, the major allergen of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Scand J Immunol (1996) 44:335–44. doi:10.1046/j.1365-3083.1996.d01-314.x

50. Rehbein H, Oehlenschlaeger J, editors. Fishery Products: Quality, Safety and Authenticity. Weinheim: Wiley-Blackwell (2009).

51. Kobayashi A, Tanaka H, Hamada Y, Ishizaki S, Nagashima Y, Shiomi K. Comparison of allergenicity and allergens between fish white and dark muscles. Allergy (2006) 61:357–63. doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.2006.00966.x

52. Griesmeier U, Vázquez-Cortés S, Bublin M, Radauer C, Ma Y, Briza P, et al. Expression levels of parvalbumins determine allergenicity of fish species. Allergy (2010) 65:191–8. doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.2009.02162.x

53. Kuehn A, Scheuermann T, Hilger C, Hentges F. Important variations in parvalbumin content in common fish species: a factor possibly contributing to variable allergenicity. Int Arch Allergy Immunol (2010) 153:359–66. doi:10.1159/000316346

54. Lee PW, Nordlee JA, Koppelman SJ, Baumert JL, Taylor SL. Measuring parvalbumin levels in fish muscle tissue: relevance of muscle locations and storage conditions. Food Chem (2012) 135:502–7. doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2012.05.030

55. Sletten G, Van Do T, Lindvik H, Egaas E, Florvaag E. Effects of industrial processing on the immunogenicity of commonly ingested fish species. Int Arch Allergy Immunol (2010) 151:223–36. doi:10.1159/000242360

56. Arif SH. A Ca2+-binding protein with numerous roles and uses: parvalbumin in molecular biology and physiology. Bioessays (2009) 31:410–21. doi:10.1002/bies.200800170

57. Schwaller B. The continuing disappearance of “pure” Ca2+ buffers. Cell Mol Life Sci (2009) 66:275–300. doi:10.1007/s00018-008-8564-6

58. Permyakov SE, Bakunts AG, Denesyuk AI, Knyazeva EL, Uversky VN, Permyakov EA. Apo-parvalbumin as an intrinsically disordered protein. Proteins (2008) 72:822–36. doi:10.1002/prot.21974

59. Bugajska-Schretter A, Grote M, Vangelista L, Valent P, Sperr WR, Rumpold H, et al. Purification, biochemical, and immunological characterisation of a major food allergen: different immunoglobulin E recognition of the apo- and calcium-bound forms of carp parvalbumin. Gut (2000) 46:661–9. doi:10.1136/gut.46.5.661

60. Swoboda I, Bugajska-Schretter A, Linhart B, Verdino P, Keller W, Schulmeister U, et al. A recombinant hypoallergenic parvalbumin mutant for immunotherapy of IgE-mediated fish allergy. J Immunol (2007) 178:6290–6.

61. King TP, Hoffman D, Lowenstein H, Marsh DG, Platts-Mills TA, Thomas W. Allergen nomenclature. WHO/IUIS allergen nomenclature subcommittee. Int Arch Allergy Immunol (1994) 105:224–33. doi:10.1159/000236761

62. Mari A, Scala E, Palazzo P, Ridolfi S, Zennaro D, Carabella G. Bioinformatics applied to allergy: allergen databases, from collecting sequence information to data integration. The allergome platform as a model. Cell Immunol (2006) 244:97–100. doi:10.1016/j.cellimm.2007.02.012

63. Bugajska-Schretter A, Elfman L, Fuchs T, Kapiotis S, Rumpold H, Valenta R, et al. Parvalbumin, a cross-reactive fish allergen, contains IgE-binding epitopes sensitive to periodate treatment and Ca2+ depletion. J Allergy Clin Immunol (1998) 101:67–74. doi:10.1016/S0091-6749(98)70195-2

64. Lim DL, Neo KH, Yi FC, Chua KY, Goh DL, Shek LP, et al. Parvalbumin – the major tropical fish allergen. Pediatr Allergy Immunol (2008) 19:399–407. doi:10.1111/j.1399-3038.2007.00674.x

65. Swoboda I, Bugajska-Schretter A, Verdino P, Keller W, Sperr WR, Valent P, et al. Recombinant carp parvalbumin, the major cross-reactive fish allergen: a tool for diagnosis and therapy of fish allergy. J Immunol (2002) 168:4576–84.

66. Rosmilah M, Shahnaz M, Masita A, Noormalin A, Jamaludin M. Identification of major allergens of two species of local snappers: Lutjanus argentimaculatus (merah/red snapper) and Lutjanus johnii (jenahak/golden snapper). Trop Biomed (2005) 22:171–7.

67. Wang B, Li Z, Zheng L, Liu Y, Lin H. Identification and characterization of a new Ige-binding protein in mackerel (Scomber japonicus) by MALDI-TOF-MS. J Ocean Univ China (2011) 1:93–8. doi:10.1007/s11802-011-1793-6

68. Van Do T, Elsayed S, Florvaag E, Hordvik I, Endresen C. Allergy to fish parvalbumins: studies on the cross-reactivity of allergens from 9 commonly consumed fish. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2005) 116:1314–20. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2005.07.033

69. Liu R, Krishnan HB, Xue W, Liu C. Characterization of allergens isolated from the freshwater fish blunt snout bream (Megalobrama amblycephala). J Agric Food Chem (2011) 59:458–63. doi:10.1021/jf103942p

70. Nakamura R, Satoh R, Nakajima Y, Kawasaki N, Yamaguchi T, Sawada J, et al. Comparative study of GH-transgenic and non-transgenic amago salmon (Oncorhynchus masou ishikawae) allergenicity and proteomic analysis of amago salmon allergens. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol (2009) 55:300–8. doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2009.08.002

71. Tomm JM, van Do T, Jende C, Simon JC, Treudler R, von Bergen M, et al. Identification of new potential allergens from Nile perch (Lates niloticus) and cod (Gadus morhua). J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol (2013) 23:159–67.

72. Kuehn A, Hilger C, Lehners-Weber C, Codreanu-Morel F, Morisset M, Metz-Favre C, et al. Identification of enolases and aldolases as important fish allergens in cod, salmon and tuna: component resolved diagnosis using parvalbumin and the new allergens. Clin Exp Allergy (2013) 43:811–22. doi:10.1111/cea.12117

73. Karim AA, Bhat R. Fish gelatin: properties, challenges, and prospects as an alternative to mammalian gelatins. Food Hydrocoll (2009) 23:563–76. doi:10.1016/j.foodhyd.2008.07.002

74. Hamada Y, Nagashima Y, Shiomi K. Identification of collagen as a new fish allergen. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem (2001) 65:285–91. doi:10.1271/bbb.65.285

75. Sakaguchi M, Nakayama T, Inouye S. Food allergy to gelatin in children with systemic immediate-type reactions, including anaphylaxis, to vaccines. J Allergy Clin Immunol (1996) 98:1058–61. doi:10.1016/S0091-6749(96)80191-6

76. André F, Cavagna S, Andre C. Gelatin prepared from tuna skin: a risk factor for fish allergy or sensitization? Int Arch Allergy Immunol (2003) 130:17–24. doi:10.1159/000068370

77. Hansen TK, Poulsen LK, Stahl Skov P, Hefle SL, Hlywka JJ, Taylor SL, et al. A randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled oral challenge study to evaluate the allergenicity of commercial, food-grade fish gelatin. Food Chem Toxicol (2004) 42:2037–44. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2004.08.008

78. Kuehn A, Hilger C, Hentges F. Anaphylaxis provoked by ingestion of marshmallows containing fish gelatin. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2009) 123:708–9. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2008.12.012

79. Weber P, Steinhart H, Paschke A. Competitive indirect ELISA for the determination of parvalbumins from various fish species in food grade fish gelatins and isinglass with PARV-19 anti-parvalbumin antibodies. J Agric Food Chem (2009) 57:11328–34. doi:10.1021/jf902470e

80. Dory D, Chopin C, Aimone-Gastin I, Gueant JL, Guerin L, Sainte-Laudy J, et al. Recognition of an extensive range of IgE-reactive proteins in cod extract. Allergy (1998) 53:42–50. doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.1998.tb03772.x

81. Misnan R, Murad S, Jones M, Taylor G, Rahman D, Arip M, et al. Identification of the major allergens of Indian scad (Decapterus russelli). Asian Pac J Allergy Immunol (2008) 26:191–8.

82. Sten E, Hansen TK, Stahl Skov P, Andersen SB, Torp A, Bindslev-Jensen U, et al. Cross-reactivity to eel, eelpout and ocean pout in codfish-allergic patients. Allergy (2004) 59:1173–80. doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.2004.00497.x

83. Das Dores S, Chopin C, Romano A, Galland-Irmouli AV, Quaratino D, Pascual C, et al. IgE-binding and cross-reactivity of a new 41 kDa allergen of codfish. Allergy (2002) 57:84–7. doi:10.1034/j.1398-9995.57.s72.6.x

84. Rosmilah M, Shahnaz M, Meinir J, Masita A, Noormalin A, Jamaluddin M. Identification of parvalbumin and two new thermolabile major allergens of Thunnus tonggol using a proteomics approach. Int Arch Allergy Immunol (2013) 162:299–309. doi:10.1159/000354544

85. Kondo Y, Kakami M, Koyama H, Yasuda T, Nakajima Y, Kawamura M, et al. IgE cross-reactivity between fish roe (salmon, herring and pollock) and chicken egg in patients anaphylactic to salmon roe. Allergol Int (2005) 54:317–23. doi:10.2332/allergolint.54.317

86. Perez-Gordo M, Sanchez-Garcia S, Cases B, Pastor C, Vivanco F, Cuesta-Herranz J. Identification of vitellogenin as an allergen in Beluga caviar allergy. Allergy (2008) 63:479–80. doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.2007.01614.x

87. Liu R, Holck AL, Yang E, Liu C, Xue W. Tropomyosin from tilapia (Oreochromis mossambicus) as an allergen. Clin Exp Allergy (2013) 43:365–77. doi:10.1111/cea.12056

88. Weber P, Paschke A. Fish allergens. In: Jedrychowski L, Wichers HJ, editors. Chemical and Biological Properties of Food Allergens. Boca Raton: CRC Press (2010).

89. Moncrief ND, Kretsinger RH, Goodman M. Evolution of EF-hand calcium-modulated proteins. I. Relationships based on amino acid sequences. J Mol Evol (1990) 30:522–62. doi:10.1007/BF02101108

90. Nakayama S, Moncrief ND, Kretsinger RH. Evolution of EF-hand calcium-modulated proteins. II. Domains of several subfamilies have diverse evolutionary histories. J Mol Evol (1992) 34:416–48. doi:10.1007/BF00162998

91. Brewer JM, Arnold J, Beach GG, Ragland WL, Wunderlich JK. Comparison of the amino acid sequences of tissue-specific parvalbumins from chicken muscle and thymus and possible evolutionary significance. Biochem Biophys Res Commun (1991) 181:226–31. doi:10.1016/S0006-291X(05)81406-8

92. Föhr UG, Weber BR, Müntener M, Staudenmann W, Hughes GJ, Frutiger S, et al. Human alpha and beta parvalbumins. Structure and tissue-specific expression. Eur J Biochem (1993) 215:719–27. doi:10.1111/j.1432-1033.1993.tb18084.x

93. Goodman M, Pechère JF, Haiech J, Demaille JG. Evolutionary diversification of structure and function in the family of intracellular calcium-binding proteins. J Mol Evol (1979) 13:331–52. doi:10.1007/BF01731373

94. Hilger C, Grigioni F, Thill L, Mertens L, Hentges F. Severe IgE-mediated anaphylaxis following consumption of fried frog legs: definition of alpha-parvalbumin as the allergen in cause. Allergy (2002) 57:1053–8. doi:10.1034/j.1398-9995.2002.23677.x

95. Hilger C, Thill L, Grigioni F, Lehners C, Falagiani P, Ferrara A, et al. IgE antibodies of fish allergic patients cross-react with frog parvalbumin. Allergy (2004) 59:653–60. doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.2004.00436.x

96. González-Mancebo E, Pastor C, González-de-Olano D, Gandolfo-Cano M, Melendez A, Cuesta J, et al. Identification of allergens in chicken meat allergy. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol (2011) 21:326–7.

97. Kuehn A, Lehners C, Hilger C, Hentges F. Food allergy to chicken meat with IgE reactivity to muscle alpha-parvalbumin. Allergy (2009) 64:1557–8. doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.2009.02094.x

98. González-de-Olano D, Bartolomé B, Maroto AS, Vivanco F, Pastor-Vargas C. Asthma after chicken consumption due to cross-reactivity between fish and chicken parvalbumin. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol (2012) 22:227–8.

99. Lapteva YS, Uversky VN, Permyakov SE. Sequence microheterogeneity of parvalbumin, the major fish allergen. Biochim Biophys Acta (2013) 1834:1607–14. doi:10.1016/j.bbapap.2013.04.025

100. Saptarshi SR, Sharp MF, Kamath SD, Lopata AL. Antibody reactivity to the major fish allergen parvalbumin is determined by isoforms and impact of thermal processing. Food Chem (2014) 148:321–8. doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2013.10.035

101. Jenkins JA, Breiteneder H, Mills EN. Evolutionary distance from human homologs reflects allergenicity of animal food proteins. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2007) 120:1399–405. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2007.08.019

102. Elsayed S, Apold J. Immunochemical analysis of cod fish allergen M: locations of the immunoglobulin binding sites as demonstrated by the native and synthetic peptides. Allergy (1983) 38:449–59. doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.1983.tb02353.x

103. Perez-Gordo M, Pastor-Vargas C, Lin J, Bardina L, Cases B, Ibáñez MD, et al. Epitope mapping of the major allergen from Atlantic cod in Spanish population reveals different IgE-binding patterns. Mol Nutr Food Res (2013) 57:1283–90. doi:10.1002/mnfr.201200332

104. Yoshida S, Ichimura A, Shiomi K. Elucidation of a major IgE epitope of Pacific mackerel parvalbumin. Food Chem (2008) 111:857–61. doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2008.04.062

105. Brownridge P, de Mello LV, Peters M, McLean L, Claydon A, Cossins AR, et al. Regional variation in parvalbumin isoform expression correlates with muscle performance in common carp (Cyprinus carpio). J Exp Biol (2009) 212:184–93. doi:10.1242/jeb.021857

106. Huriaux F, Vandewalle P, Focant B. Immunological study of muscle parvalbumin isotypes in three African catfish during development. Comp Biochem Physiol B Biochem Mol Biol (2002) 132:579–84. doi:10.1016/S1096-4959(02)00071-4

107. Wagner S, Radauer C, Bublin M, Hoffmann-Sommergruber K, Kopp T, Greisenegger EK, et al. Naturally occurring hypoallergenic Bet v 1 isoforms fail to induce IgE responses in individuals with birch pollen allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2008) 121:246–52. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2007.08.006

Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Received: 19 December 2013; paper pending published: 13 February 2014; accepted: 05 April 2014; published online: 22 April 2014.

Citation: Kuehn A, Swoboda I, Arumugam K, Hilger C and Hentges F (2014) Fish allergens at a glance: variable allergenicity of parvalbumins, the major fish allergens. Front. Immunol. 5:179. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2014.00179

This article was submitted to Immunotherapies and Vaccines, a section of the journal Frontiers in Immunology.

Copyright © 2014 Kuehn, Swoboda, Arumugam, Hilger and Hentges. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

[1]www.allergen.org

[2]www.allergome.org

MINI REVIEW ARTICLE
published: 28 February 2014
doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2014.00077

Hymenoptera allergens: from venom to “venome”

Edzard Spillner[1]*, Simon Blank[2] and Thilo Jakob[3]*

1 Immunological Engineering, Department of Engineering, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark

2 Center of Allergy and Environment (ZAUM), Helmholtz Center Munich, Technical University, Munich, Germany

3 Allergy Research Group, Department of Dermatology, Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany

Edited by:

Christiane Hilger, Centre de Recherche Public Santé, Luxembourg

Reviewed by:

Robert T. Wheeler, University of Maine, USA
Andreas Kerstan, University Hospital of Würzburg, Germany

*Correspondence:

Edzard Spillner, Immunological Engineering, Department of Engineering, Aarhus University, Gustav Wieds Vej 10, Aarhus C, Aarhus 8000, Denmark
e-mail: e.spillner@eng.au.dk;
Thilo Jakob, Allergy Research Group, Department of Dermatology, Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Hauptstr. 7, Freiburg 79104, Germany
e-mail: thilo.jakob@uniklinik-freiburg.de

In Western Europe, Hymenoptera venom allergy (HVA) primarily relates to venoms of the honeybee and the common yellow jacket. In contrast to other allergen sources, only a few major components of Hymenoptera venoms had been characterized until recently. Improved expression systems and proteomic detection strategies have allowed the identification and characterization of a wide range of additional allergens. The field of HVA research has moved rapidly from focusing on venom extract and single major allergens to a molecular understanding of the entire “venome” as a system of unique and characteristic components. An increasing number of such components has been identified, characterized regarding function, and assessed for allergenic potential. Moreover, advanced expression strategies for recombinant production of venom allergens allow selective modification of molecules and provide insight into different types of immunoglobulin E reactivities and sensitization patterns. The obtained information contributes to an increased diagnostic precision in HVA and may serve for monitoring, re-evaluation, and improvement of current therapeutic strategies.

Keywords: allergen components, allergy, cross-reactivity, insect venom, recombinant allergens, sensitization

HYMENOPTERA VENOM ALLERGY

Hymenoptera venom allergy (HVA) is defined as systemic allergic or anaphylactic reactions that occur in response to stings of insects of the Hymenoptera order. In central and western Europe, this involves most commonly stings by yellow jackets and honey bees, and less frequently stings by hornets or bumble bees. In southern parts of Europe, paper wasps (Polistinae) also play a relevant role. The prevalence of systemic allergic reactions to Hymenoptera stings ranges from 0.3 to 3.4% in the general population. The lowest occurrence is reported in children and the highest in beekeepers (1). Data extrapolated from hospital admissions and emergency department visits (2–5) as well as from a national register for anaphylaxis (6) suggest that HVA may account for up to one third of all anaphylactic reactions. The diagnosis of HVA is routinely based on the clinical history and detection of immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated sensitization by skin testing and/or by in vitro detection of venom-specific IgE. In addition, cellular test such as basophil activation test or histamine release test are used to identify the sensitizing venom in cases in which the routine testing is not conclusive. Once the diagnosis is confirmed, immunotherapy with the culprit venom offers a high degree of protection from future anaphylactic sting reactions ranging from 80 to 84% in bee venom allergy and 90–95% in yellow jacket venom (YJV) allergy (1).

For diagnostic as well as for therapeutic purposes, whole venom preparations are generally used (Figure 1A). All diagnostic systems that use whole venom preparations are potentially hampered by IgE cross-reactivity that does not allow a precise distinction between true double sensitization and cross-reactivity between different venoms. This cross-reactivity may be based on IgE-reactivity to homologous single venom allergens present in venom of different families or on IgE-reactivity to cross-reactive carbohydrate determinants (CCD) (7).

FIGURE 1 | Venom components and CCD. (A) Representative 2D-gel of the honeybee venom stained with Coomassie Brilliant Blue G-250 demonstrating the complexity of the venome (kindly provided by Dr. Nico Peiren, Laboratory of Zoophysiology, Ghent University, Belgium). (B) CCD sIgE-reactivity of rabbit anti-HRP serum with different Hymenoptera venoms in immunoblotting. Note the lack of CCD-reactivity in Polistes venom. (C) Schematic representation of xenobiotic core glycosylation as found in insects. This carries an additional α 1,3-linked fucose residue compared to plants having an additional β 1,2-linked xylose residue. (GlcNAc, N-acetylglucosamine; Man, mannose; Fuc, fucose). (D) Comparison of IgE antibody levels to glycosylated rApi m 1 (CG) and native purified Api m 1 in CCD negative HBV allergic patients (n = 89). Hatched horizontal and vertical lines indicate the 0.35 kUA/L cut-off and the hatched diagonal line represents a 1:1 ratio.

Until recently, the limited information on single venom allergens and their unavailability for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes rendered HVA an outmoded field, particularly when compared to the progress made in the molecular understanding of other forms of allergies.

Recent advances in expression systems and proteomic detection strategies have allowed the identification and characterization of a wide range of additional Hymenoptera allergens and have moved the field rapidly from focusing on whole venoms and single major allergens to a molecular understanding of the entire “venome” as a system of unique and characteristic components. Here, we review the current information on venom allergens in different Hymenoptera species, their use for reliable diagnostic detection of HVA as well as their potential role in therapeutic intervention.

HYMENOPTERA VENOM ALLERGENS

Understanding hypersensitivity reactions to venom allergens is often hampered by complexity of the source material (Figure 1A). This is best exemplified by the venom allergen components of the honeybee (Apis mellifera) and the common yellow jacket (Vespula vulgaris), as they are known to date (Table 1).

Table 1 | Overview about the presently known Hymenoptera venom allergens.

The most prominent honeybee venom (HBV) allergens include phospholipase A2, hyaluronidase, and the basic 26 amino acid peptide melittin (8), all of which constitute higher abundance proteins with estimated amounts of 12, 2, and 50% of the venom dry weight (DW), respectively (9). Classical YJV allergens are phospholipase A1, hyaluronidase, and antigen 5 (10), the function of which remains unknown. These two sets of proteins are found with modifications throughout most Hymenoptera species and by far most identified allergens correspond to these protein classes.

In recent years, however significant progress has been made in identification of novel molecules of lower abundance. For some the allergic potential had already been described, such as the acid phosphatase of HBV (Api m 3), however the gene was identified and recombinantly expressed only recently (8, 11). Moreover, with the identification of the 100 kDa allergen C of HBV and its YJV homolog as dipeptidyl peptidase s IV, a novel class of Hymenoptera venom enzymes could be described (12, 13). In YJV in addition to the classical hyaluronidase (Ves v 2.0101), an inactive isoform (Ves v 2.0201), was identified, which seems to be the dominating isoform in the venom (14). Furthermore, it was demonstrated that Api m 10 represents a novel major allergen of HBV with potentially high impact for diagnostic and therapeutic applications (15, 16). Other IgE-reactive proteins of HBV include a putative protease inhibitor (17, 18), a protease (19), an esterase, and a peptidase whose relevance is currently investigated. The newest allergens are the two major royal jelly proteins (MRJP) 8 and 9 (two isoforms of Api m 11) in HBV (20) as well as novel pan-allergens, the vitellogenins Api m 12, and Ves v 6 (21).

In addition to these components with documented allergenic nature, recently some other components such as a C1q-like protein (22), a platelet derived growth factor (PDGF)/vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-like protein (23), and hexamerin (24) were identified, the allergenic nature of which still has to be evaluated.

Transcriptomics very recently suggested the presence of an antigen 5 like protein in the venom of winter bees (25). Even the season (and most likely the climate and geographic region) seem to have profound impact on the venome. Proteomics revealed the presence of the antimicrobial peptide apidaecin (25) further demonstrating that the complexity of the venome is not restricted to larger proteins. The lower molecular weight (MW) fraction of the venom contains a variety of peptidic components with unique biophysical and clinical characteristics. Their contributions to the sting reaction beyond IgE-reactivity however still need to be addressed.

By increasing application of advanced proteomic, peptidomic, and genomic approaches, the venome and thereby the number of allergens, certainly will significantly increase in the future. The most recent proteomic analysis of honey bee venom (Figure 1A) revealed >100 different components (26). Furthermore, another level of complexity is achieved by the generation of additional isoforms and post-translational modification. All available data however suggest that the apparent plasticity of the venome makes its final definition a never ending story.

As HBV and YJV can be considered prototypic for other Hymenoptera venoms, their composition is reflected in other species including the bumble bee (Bombus terrestris and the American B. pennsylvanicus), the venom composition of which closely resembles that of the honeybee. Bumble bees gained particular importance for pollination industry workers.

In analogy, venom allergens of diverse other Vespidae species such as white-faced hornet (Dolichovespula maculata) or the European hornet (Vespa crabro) are fairly similar to those of the yellow jacket. Allergy to venom of the phylogenetic more distant paper wasps (Polistinae) is common in North America as well as in Europe, especially in Mediterranean areas. Important Polistes species in Europe are P. dominula and P. gallicus, whereas in Northern America other species such as P. annularis, P. apachus, P. exclamans, P. fuscatus, and P. metricus are dominant. In the last decades, P. dominula has increasingly spread across the North American continent and central and northern parts of Europe. The IgE cross-reactivity between European and American Polistes species is described as rather low because they belong to different subgenera. In contrast, cross-reactivity between Polistinae and Vespinae (Vespula, Dolichovespula, and Vespa) venoms and purified venom proteins (27) is frequently observed, especially for Vespula and both American and European Polistes venom (28).

For all these species, only a limited set of allergens has been identified so far although it is quite likely that all venoms will contain conserved allergens such as hyaluronidases, dipeptidyl peptidases, and vitellogenins that in part contribute to molecular cross-reactivity. Other protein families such as proteases (Api m 7, Pol d 4) show clear molecular differences and it remains open if these proteases will be found in all Hymenoptera venoms.

Moreover, it is widely accepted that IgE cross-reactivity between different insect venoms can be attributed to CCD that are present on a large number of venom allergens (Figure 1B). The only exceptions are apparently venoms of Polistes species that seem to lack the alpha 1,3-linked fucose (Fuc) residue that is responsible for IgE-reactivity to CCDs (29).

RECOMBINANT ALLERGENS FOR THE DIAGNOSIS OF HVA

The above mentioned considerations and the entomological diversity of potential culprit insects demand a careful diagnostic algorithm prior to immunotherapeutic intervention. Diagnosis of HVA is based on a history of anaphylactic sting reactions, positive skin test responses, and/or detection of specific IgE to Hymenoptera venom. Positive results in skin and serological tests with conventional venom extracts, however, do not always reflect genuine sensitizations and are frequently caused by clinically irrelevant cross-reactive antibodies. Treatment modalities therefore often include different venoms, resulting in higher costs, increased risk of side effects, and possible de novo sensitizations. Molecular approaches are increasingly recognized as elegant way to obtain reliable and detailed diagnostic information. Until recently, only a very limited number of venom allergens such as Api m 1, Api m 4, and Ves v 5 was available either as native or recombinant proteins (30, 31). Their use and the possibility to perform analyses on a molecular level resulted in a clear improvement of diagnostic precision (32, 33). Inherent problems and general considerations however apply for the isolation and production of venom allergens. Even with isolation of high abundance allergens you run the risk of having contaminating residual components in the preparation that may distort the picture at a molecular level.

Applying recombinant technologies, this particular problem does not exist but difficulties rather lie in the establishment of an adequate and efficient production system. The efficiency of the prokaryotic approach is often compromised by the need of extensive folding steps limiting its use to structurally relatively simple and small molecules. In contrast, eukaryotes such as yeast and in particular insect and mammalian cells add oligosaccharides, which are similar but not identical to the glycan of the native allergen and which influence the folding and the immunoreactivity (34). Although early recognized (34), in the last few years expression in insect cells was established as appropriate system for insect venom allergens. The functionality of proteins, the epitope authenticity, and the correct folding of resulting proteins could be demonstrated for a large number of allergens (Table 1) (12, 34, 35).

A common problem of in vitro diagnosis of insect venom allergy using venom extracts are patients with double positive test results for HBV and YJV that in our HVA patient cohort from the south west of Germany constitute approximately 45–50% of all cases. This double positivity may reflect true double sensitization to HBV and YJV, or may be based on IgE cross-reactivity.

Immunoglobulin E cross-reactivity may be based on common protein epitopes of homologous allergens of both venoms as described for hyaluronidases, dipeptidyl peptidases, and the new 200 kDa vitellogenin allergens. Alternatively, cross-reactivities can be attributed to IgE antibodies directed against cross-reactive glyco-epitopes of the allergens (7, 36, 37). This is of particular importance, since most HBV and YJV allergens are glycoproteins with one or more of such carbohydrate structures (Table 1).

Causative for the phenomenon of cross-reactivity are IgE antibodies that are directed against an alpha 1,3-linked fuc residue of the N-glycan core established by insects and plants (Figure 1C). In plants, additionally a beta 1,2-xylose residue is found at the core glycan to which IgE also can be directed. Such xenobiotic modifications represent highly immunogenic epitopes, which can induce specific immunoglobulin G (IgG) as well as IgE antibodies (38). CCD-specific IgE antibodies have been reported to be responsible for more than 50% of double sensitizations to HBV and YJV (37), complicating the choice of the appropriate therapeutic intervention. The clinical relevance of CCD-reactive IgE antibodies is controversially discussed, but in the case of insect venom allergy appears to be low or non-existing. Accordingly, CCD-carrying glycoproteins can effect mediator release from basophils but do not provoke significant responses in individuals with CCD-specific IgE (39). Nevertheless, anti-CCD IgE represent an undoubted pitfall of in vitro allergy diagnostics, since they cause multiple reactivities with any glycosylated plant (food, pollen) or insect venom allergen and thereby interfere with the detection of clinically relevant sensitization to protein epitopes. A prominent example of CCD-based interference with diagnostic precision is the honey bee venom major allergen Api m 1 that carries in its natural form an alpha 1,3-linked fuc on a N-glycan core structure and thus is reactive with IgE directed against CCDs. Generation of recombinant forms of Api m 1 that either lack the entire core glycan or only the 1,3 fuc residue, demonstrated a high reliability to detect sensitization to the species-specific protein epitopes as compared to nApi m 1 (Figure 1D) (40).

Molecular diagnosis applying non-glycosylated species-specific allergens such as Api m 1 and Ves v 5 (41–43) and strategies to circumvent the presence of CCDs led to a significant advance in the dissection of true double sensitization versus irrelevant cross-reactivity. The use of Sf9 insect cells from Spodoptera frugiperda as expression system results in allergens with functional glycosylation, proper folding, and complete epitope spectrum but not showing any immunologically detectable CCD-reactivity (Figure 1D). This phenomenon is obviously based on the specific absence of alpha 1,3-core fucosylation (35). Resulting CCD-free engineered and correctly folded allergens allow for the first time the assessment of their relevance regardless of their natural glycosylation bypassing complex inhibition analyses. Using CCD-free, correctly folded Ves v 2.0101 and Ves v 2.0201, we were able to clearly demonstrate that hyaluronidases – contrary to previous assumptions – do not play a significant role as major allergens of YJV (35), a fact that was corroborated by findings of others (44, 45). In contrast, even for highly glycosylated proteins such as Api m 5, Api m 10, and Api m 11, a pronounced IgE-reactivity beyond CCDs with clinical relevance was demonstrated (12, 15, 16, 20).

Another problem of in vitro diagnosis of HVA using venom extracts are patients with a documented history but negative test results. A possible reason might be that venom extracts represent heterogeneous mixtures in which the components are present in widely varying concentrations and that particular allergens can be lost or degraded during the processing (15). Alternatively, coupling behavior within the assay system or accessibility of individual allergens within the extract may be different from the isolated protein. An excellent example for this kind of discrepancies has been reported quite recently in patients with YJV allergy (46). Among patients with a well-documented history of yellow jacket sting anaphylaxis but negative IgE test results to YJV extract, 84% could be diagnosed by using recombinant Ves v 5 as allergen. Subsequent analysis of a large cohort of YJV allergic patients confirmed that IgE-reactivity to Ves v 5 was under-represented in the whole venom extract. This discrepancy could be solved by spiking the venom extract with rVes v 5, a procedure that was adopted by one of the manufacturers of these diagnostic extracts (Thermo Fisher Scientific). These and many other problems can be bypassed using molecular diagnostics in form of recombinant allergens, which additionally are available in unlimited amounts and thus analytically better accessible.

VENOM IMMUNOTHERAPY IN HVA

Specific immunotherapy with the culprit venom (VIT) offers a high degree of protection from future anaphylactic sting reactions ranging from 80 to 84% in bee venom allergy and 90–95% in YJV allergy (1).

The degree of protection induced by VIT is either extrapolated from patient information on the occurrence and tolerance of field stings or obtained from clinical data in which patients who are receiving maintenance VIT undergo a sting challenge in a controlled clinical setting. A most recent study by Rueff et al. that included more than 1500 patients that had received a sting challenge, observed a protection rate of 84% for bee VIT and 96% for yellow jacket VIT (47). Using a logistic regression model to assess relative risk factors for not being protected, they identified among others VIT with HBV as one of the highest risk factors (as compared to VIT with YJV) with an odds ratio of 5. This difference in honeybee versus yellow jacket VIT has been known for decades and has been suggested to be related to differences in quantities and qualities of venoms that are injected during the sting. The recent progress in the molecular characterization of relevant venoms has demonstrated that in particular in HBV low abundance proteins such as Api m 3, Api m 5, and Api m 10 play an important and until then underestimated role as allergens (11, 12, 15).

Despite the fact that these allergens are present only in low quantities, they must be regarded as major allergens since more that 50% of HBV allergic patients display IgE-reactivity to them (16). Interestingly, two of these allergens, Api m 3 and Api m 10, while present in the crude venom abstract, are absent or under-represented in therapeutic venom preparations (15). When analyzing sensitization profiles in HBV allergic patients, IgE to Api m 3 and/or Api m 10 was detected in up to 68% and in 5% of the patients IgE was directed against Api m 3 and/or Api m 10 only (16). The under-representation of Api m 3 and Api m 10 in therapeutic venom preparations was additionally confirmed indirectly by analyzing allergen sIgG4 in patients under VIT. While VIT induced a robust sIgG4 response to Api m 1, Api m 2, and Api m 4, no or only very little IgG4 induction could be observed to Api m 3 and Api m 10.

Based on these findings, it is tempting to speculate that the relative lack of these two allergens in therapeutic venom preparation may account for the reduced efficacy of VIT in bee venom-allergic patients, a hypothesis that is currently under investigation. Provided that indeed different sensitization profiles to bee venom allergens are associated with an increased risk of not being protected by VIT, one could envision different strategies to improve to efficacy of VIT in these patients. Here improved methods of generating the therapeutic venom preparation may be developed to circumvent the loss of individual allergens. Alternatively, existing venom preparations could be enhanced by spiking with recombinant allergens that are under-represented or lacking. Finally, generation of individual allergen cocktails for patient tailored immunotherapy would be conceivable. The latter two options, however, are highly unlikely, given the relatively small group of patients that would benefit and the high regulatory requirements for registrations of individualized immunotherapy products.

CONCLUSION

Advances in the characterization of Hymenoptera venoms offer detailed insights into the molecular basis of toxicology and allergic sensitization potential of individual venom components. Recombinant access and the capability to define the allergen glycosylation allows for advanced strategies for differentiation of genuine double sensitization and cross-reactivity as well as for avoidance of a reactivity bias toward less relevant allergens in extracts. Applying a growing panel of CCD-free species-specific as well as homologous recombinant allergens, molecular diagnosis increasingly allows for establishment of individual sensitization profiles. Such profiles also include the potential to follow the course of therapy, to diagnose therapy-induced de novo sensitizations, opportunities to adapt therapeutic intervention, and possibly to develop prognostic markers for therapeutic success.

ABBREVIATIONS

BAT, basophil activation test; CCD, cross-reactive carbohydrate determinant; CRP, carbohydrate-rich protein; DPP IV, dipeptidyl peptidase IV; DW, dry weight; ELISA, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay; Fuc, fucose; GlcNAc, N-acetylglucosamine; HRP, horseradish peroxidase; IgE, immunoglobulin E; IgG, immunoglobulin G; Man, mannose; MRJP, major royal jelly protein; MW, molecular weight; PAGE, polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis; PDGF, platelet derived growth factor; sIgE, specific immunoglobulin E; VEGF, vascular endothelial growth factor.

REFERENCES

1. Bilo MB, Bonifazi F. The natural history and epidemiology of insect venom allergy: clinical implications. Clin Exp Allergy (2009) 39(10):1467–76. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2222.2009.03324.x

2. Bilo MB. Anaphylaxis caused by Hymenoptera stings: from epidemiology to treatment. Allergy (2011) 66(Suppl 95):35–7. doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.2011.02630.x

3. Harduar-Morano L, Simon MR, Watkins S, Blackmore C. A population-based epidemiologic study of emergency department visits for anaphylaxis in Florida. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2011) 128(3):594–600. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2011.04.049

4. Hoffer V, Scheuerman O, Marcus N, Levy Y, Segal N, Lagovsky I, et al. Anaphylaxis in Israel: experience with 92 hospitalized children. Pediatr Allergy Immunol (2011) 22(2):172–7. doi:10.1111/j.1399-3038.2010.00990.x

5. Moro Moro M, Tejedor Alonso MA, Esteban Hernandez J, Mugica Garcia MV, Rosado Ingelmo A, Vila Albelda C. Incidence of anaphylaxis and subtypes of anaphylaxis in a general hospital emergency department. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol (2011) 21(2):142–9.

6. Hompes S, Kohli A, Nemat K, Scherer K, Lange L, Rueff F, et al. Provoking allergens and treatment of anaphylaxis in children and adolescents – data from the anaphylaxis registry of German-speaking countries. Pediatr Allergy Immunol (2011) 22(6):568–74. doi:10.1111/j.1399-3038.2011.01154.x

7. Aalberse RC, Akkerdaas J, van Ree R. Cross-reactivity of IgE antibodies to allergens. Allergy (2001) 56(6):478–90. doi:10.1034/j.1398-9995.2001.056006478.x

8. Arbesman CE, Reisman RE, Wypych JI. Allergenic potency of bee antigens measured by RAST inhibition. Clin Allergy (1976) 6(6):587–95. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2222.1976.tb01945.x

9. Müller UR. Insektenstichallergie: Klinik, Diagnostik und Therapie. Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer Verlag (1988).

10. King TP, Alagon AC, Kuan J, Sobotka AK, Lichtenstein LM. Immunochemical studies of yellow jacket venom proteins. Mol Immunol (1983) 20(3):297–308. doi:10.1016/0161-5890(83)90069-X

11. Grunwald T, Bockisch B, Spillner E, Ring J, Bredehorst R, Ollert MW. Molecular cloning and expression in insect cells of honeybee venom allergen acid phosphatase (Api m 3). J Allergy Clin Immunol (2006) 117(4):848–54. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2005.12.1331

12. Blank S, Seismann H, Bockisch B, Braren I, Cifuentes L, McIntyre M, et al. Identification, recombinant expression, and characterization of the 100 kDa high molecular weight Hymenoptera venom allergens Api m 5 and Ves v 3. J Immunol (2010) 184(9):5403–13. doi:10.4049/jimmunol.0803709

13. Hoffman DR, Shipman WH, Babin D. Allergens in bee venom II. Two new high molecular weight allergenic specificities. J Allergy Clin Immunol (1977) 59(2):147–53. doi:10.1016/0091-6749(77)90217-2

14. Kolarich D, Leonard R, Hemmer W, Altmann F. The N-glycans of yellow jacket venom hyaluronidases and the protein sequence of its major isoform in Vespula vulgaris. FEBS J (2005) 272(20):5182–90. doi:10.1111/j.1742-4658.2005.04841.x

15. Blank S, Seismann H, Michel Y, McIntyre M, Cifuentes L, Braren I, et al. Api m 10, a genuine A. mellifera venom allergen, is clinically relevant but underrepresented in therapeutic extracts. Allergy (2011) 66(10):1322–9. doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.2011.02667.x

16. Kohler J, Blank S, Muller S, Bantleon F, Frick M, Huss-Marp J, et al. Component resolution reveals additional major allergens in patients with honeybee venom allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2014). doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2013.10.060

17. Michel Y, McIntyre M, Ginglinger H, Ollert M, Cifuentes L, Blank S, et al. The putative serine protease inhibitor Api m 6 from Apis mellifera venom: recombinant and structural evaluation. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol (2012) 22(7):476–84.

18. Kettner A, Hughes GJ, Frutiger S, Astori M, Roggero M, Spertini F, et al. Api m 6: a new bee venom allergen. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2001) 107(5):914–20. doi:10.1067/mai.2001.113867

19. Winningham KM, Fitch CD, Schmidt M, Hoffman DR. Hymenoptera venom protease allergens. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2004) 114(4):928–33. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2004.07.043

20. Blank S, Bantleon FI, McIntyre M, Ollert M, Spillner E. The major royal jelly proteins 8 and 9 (Api m 11) are glycosylated components of Apis mellifera venom with allergenic potential beyond carbohydrate-based reactivity. Clin Exp Allergy (2012) 42(6):976–85. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2222.2012.03966.x

21. Blank S, Seismann H, McIntyre M, Ollert M, Wolf S, Bantleon FI, et al. Vitellogenins are new high molecular weight components and allergens (Api m 12 and Ves v 6) of Apis mellifera and Vespula vulgaris venom. PLoS One (2013) 8(4):e62009. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0062009

22. de Graaf DC, Brunain M, Scharlaken B, Peiren N, Devreese B, Ebo DG, et al. Two novel proteins expressed by the venom glands of Apis mellifera and Nasonia vitripennis share an ancient C1q-like domain. Insect Mol Biol (2010) 19(Suppl 1):1–10. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2583.2009.00913.x

23. Peiren N, Vanrobaeys F, de Graaf DC, Devreese B, Van Beeumen J, Jacobs FJ. The protein composition of honeybee venom reconsidered by a proteomic approach. Biochim Biophys Acta (2005) 1752(1):1–5. doi:10.1016/j.bbapap.2005.07.017

24. Schmidt M, Weimer ET, Sakell RH, Hoffman DR. Proteins in the high molecular weight fraction of honeybee venom. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2005) 115:S107. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2004.12.443

25. Van Vaerenbergh M, Cardoen D, Formesyn EM, Brunain M, Van Driessche G, Blank S, et al. Extending the honey bee venome with the antimicrobial peptide apidaecin and a protein resembling wasp antigen 5. Insect Mol Biol (2013) 22(2):199–210. doi:10.1111/imb.12013

26. Van Vaerenbergh MDG, Devreese B, de Graaf DC. Exploring the hidden honeybee (Apis mellifera) venom proteome by integrating a combinatorial peptide ligand library approach with FTMS. J Proteomics (2014) (In press).

27. Monsalve RI, Vega A, Marques L, Miranda A, Fernandez J, Soriano V, et al. Component-resolved diagnosis of vespid venom-allergic individuals: phospholipases and antigen 5s are necessary to identify Vespula or Polistes sensitization. Allergy (2012) 67(4):528–36. doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.2011.02781.x

28. Caruso B, Bonadonna P, Severino MG, Manfredi M, Dama A, Schiappoli M, et al. Evaluation of the IgE cross-reactions among vespid venoms. A possible approach for the choice of immunotherapy. Allergy (2007) 62(5):561–4. doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.2007.01353.x

29. Blank S, Neu C, Hasche D, Bantleon FI, Jakob T, Spillner E. Polistes species venom is devoid of carbohydrate-based cross-reactivity and allows interference-free diagnostics. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2013) 131(4):1239–42. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2012.10.047

30. King TP, Spangfort MD. Structure and biology of stinging insect venom allergens. Int Arch Allergy Immunol (2000) 123(2):99–106. doi:10.1159/000024440

31. Muller UR. Recombinant Hymenoptera venom allergens. Allergy (2002) 57(7):570–6. doi:10.1034/j.1398-9995.2002.02157.x

32. Spillner E, Blank S, Jakob T. Perspectives, pittfalls and current status of molecular diagnosis in insect venom allergy. Allergo J (2012) 21(4):249–56. doi:10.1007/s15007-012-0128-2

33. Muller UR. Recent developments and future strategies for immunotherapy of insect venom allergy. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol (2003) 3(4):299–303. doi:10.1097/00130832-200308000-00011

34. Soldatova LN, Crameri R, Gmachl M, Kemeny DM, Schmidt M, Weber M, et al. Superior biologic activity of the recombinant bee venom allergen hyaluronidase expressed in baculovirus-infected insect cells as compared with Escherichia coli. J Allergy Clin Immunol (1998) 101(5):691–8. doi:10.1016/S0091-6749(98)70179-4

35. Seismann H, Blank S, Braren I, Greunke K, Cifuentes L, Grunwald T, et al. Dissecting cross-reactivity in Hymenoptera venom allergy by circumvention of alpha-1,3-core fucosylation. Mol Immunol (2010) 47(4):799–808. doi:10.1016/j.molimm.2009.10.005

36. Hemmer W, Focke M, Kolarich D, Dalik I, Gotz M, Jarisch R. Identification by immunoblot of venom glycoproteins displaying immunoglobulin E-binding N-glycans as cross-reactive allergens in honeybee and yellow jacket venom. Clin Exp Allergy (2004) 34(3):460–9. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2222.2004.01897.x

37. Jappe U, Raulf-Heimsoth M, Hoffmann M, Burow G, Hubsch-Muller C, Enk A. In vitro Hymenoptera venom allergy diagnosis: improved by screening for cross-reactive carbohydrate determinants and reciprocal inhibition. Allergy (2006) 61(10):1220–9. doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.2006.01232.x

38. Jin C, Hantusch B, Hemmer W, Stadlmann J, Altmann F. Affinity of IgE and IgG against cross-reactive carbohydrate determinants on plant and insect glycoproteins. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2008) 121(1):185–90. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2007.07.047

39. Mari A, Ooievaar-de Heer P, Scala E, Giani M, Pirrotta L, Zuidmeer L, et al. Evaluation by double-blind placebo-controlled oral challenge of the clinical relevance of IgE antibodies against plant glycans. Allergy (2008) 63(7):891–6. doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.2008.01703.x

40. Jakob T, Kohler J, Blank S, Magnusson U, Huss-Marp J, Spillner E, et al. Comparable IgE reactivity to natural and recombinant Api m 1 in cross-reactive carbohydrate determinant-negative patients with bee venom allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2012) 130(1):276–8; author reply 278–9. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2012.03.048

41. Hofmann S, Pfender N, Weckesser S, Blank S, Huss-Marp J, Spillner E, et al. Detection of IgE to rApi m 1 and rVes v 5 is valuable but not sufficient to distinguish bee from wasp venom allergy (reply). J Allergy Clin Immunol (2011) 128:248. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2011.02.020

42. Hofmann SC, Pfender N, Weckesser S, Huss-Marp J, Jakob T. Added value of IgE detection to rApi m 1 and rVes v 5 in patients with Hymenoptera venom allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2011) 127(1):265–7. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2010.06.042

43. Muller UR, Johansen N, Petersen AB, Fromberg-Nielsen J, Haeberli G. Hymenoptera venom allergy: analysis of double positivity to honey bee and Vespula venom by estimation of IgE antibodies to species-specific major allergens Api m1 and Ves v5. Allergy (2009) 64(4):543–8. doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.2008.01794.x

44. Jin C, Focke M, Leonard R, Jarisch R, Altmann F, Hemmer W. Reassessing the role of hyaluronidase in yellow jacket venom allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2010) 125(1):184–90. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2009.08.037

45. Seppala U, Selby D, Monsalve R, King TP, Ebner C, Roepstorff P, et al. Structural and immunological characterization of the N-glycans from the major yellow jacketallergen Ves v 2: the N-glycan structures are needed for the human antibody recognition. Mol Immunol (2009) 46(10):2014–21. doi:10.1016/j.molimm.2009.03.005

46. Vos B, Kohler J, Muller S, Stretz E, Rueff F, Jakob T. Spiking venom with rVes v 5 improves sensitivity of IgE detection in patients with allergy to Vespula venom. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2013) 131(4):1225–7. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2012.07.041

47. Rueff F, Vos B, Elberink JO, Bender A, Chatelain R, Dugas-Breit S, et al. Predictors of clinical effectiveness of Hymenoptera venom immunotherapy. Clin Exp Allergy (2014). doi:10.1111/cea.12275

Conflict of Interest Statement: Thilo Jakob has received consultancy fees from Thermo Fisher Scientific, Stallergenes, Novartis, and Janssen Cilag; research support from Thermo Fisher Scientific, Dr. Fooke Laboratories, Allergopharma, and Genentech; lecture fees from Thermo Fisher Scientific, ALK-Abello, Bencard, and Essex MSD; and travel support from Thermo Fisher Scientific. Edzard Spillner has received research support from Dr. Fooke Laboratories and Euroimmun and is cofounder of PLS Design GmbH. Simon Blank report no conflicts of interest.

Received: 23 November 2013; accepted: 12 February 2014; published online: 28 February 2014.

Citation: Spillner E, Blank S and Jakob T (2014) Hymenoptera allergens: from venom to “venome”. Front. Immunol. 5:77. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2014.00077

This article was submitted to Immunotherapies and Vaccines, a section of the journal Frontiers in Immunology.

Copyright © 2014 Spillner, Blank and Jakob. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

REVIEW ARTICLE
published: 04 November 2013
doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2013.00356

Allergen recognition by innate immune cells: critical role of dendritic and epithelial cells

Fabián Salazar and Amir M. Ghaemmaghami*

Division of Immunology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, The University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK

Edited by:

Christiane Hilger, Centre de Recherche Public de la Santé, Luxembourg

Reviewed by:

María Marcela Barrio, Fundación Cáncer, Argentina
François Hentges, Centre de Recherche Public de la Santé, Luxembourg

*Correspondence:

Amir M. Ghaemmaghami, Division of Immunology, West Block, A Floor, Queen’s Medical Centre, The University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2UH, UK
e-mail: amg@nottingham.ac.uk

Allergy is an exacerbated response of the immune system against non-self-proteins called allergens and is typically characterized by biased type-2 T helper cell and deleterious IgE mediated immune responses. The allergic cascade starts with the recognition of allergens by antigen presenting cells, mainly dendritic cells (DCs), leading to Th2 polarization, switching to IgE production by B cells, culminating in mast cell sensitization and triggering. DCs have been demonstrated to play a crucial role in orchestrating allergic diseases. Using different C-type lectin receptors DCs are able to recognize and internalize a number of allergens from diverse sources leading to sensitization. Furthermore, there is increasing evidence highlighting the role of epithelial cells in triggering and modulating immune responses to allergens. As well as providing a physical barrier, epithelial cells can interact with allergens and influence DCs behavior through the release of a number of Th2 promoting cytokines. In this review we will summarize current understanding of how allergens are recognized by DCs and epithelial cells and what are the consequences of such interaction in the context of allergic sensitization and downstream events leading to allergic inflammation. Better understanding of the molecular mechanisms of allergen recognition and associated signaling pathways could enable developing more effective therapeutic strategies that target the initial steps of allergic sensitization hence hindering development or progression of allergic diseases.

Keywords: dendritic cell, epithelial cell, asthma, allergy, type-I hypersensitivity, house dust mite, pattern recognition receptor, TSLP

INTRODUCTION

Asthma is a chronic disease of the lung characterized by inflammation and airway hyper-responsiveness. Allergic asthma is probably the most common form of asthma and is classified as a type-I hypersensitivity reaction. Most pathologies that are associated with allergic asthma are the consequence of an exacerbated immune response to specific proteins known as allergens in genetically susceptible individuals (1, 2). An allergic reaction is characterized by the synthesis of allergen-specific immunoglobulin of the IgE class and Th2 cytokines (e.g., IL-4, IL-5, and IL-13), which lead to recruitment and sensitization of effector cells such as eosinophils, basophils, and mast cells (1, 3). During allergen re-exposure, the crosslinking of IgE molecules bounded to high-affinity Fcε receptors (FcεR) on the surface of mast cells and basophils results in an immediate release of the soluble mediators, such as histamine, leukotriene, and prostaglandins, which are responsible for the allergic reaction (1, 4).

Antigen recognition and uptake by innate immune cells is the first step in the process of antigen presentation that could lead to initiation of adaptive immune responses. Using a diverse set of pattern recognition receptors (PRRs) such as Toll-like receptors (TLRs) and C-type lectin receptors different types of immune and non-immune cells are able to sense conserved motifs on antigens. Dendritic cells (DCs) have been demonstrated to play a pivotal role in this process; however, the molecular mechanisms of how Th2-driven allergic immune responses are initiated and amplified have remained elusive (3–5). Recently, the role of epithelial cells as key modulators of DC behavior has been highlighted (6, 7). Specifically, airway epithelial cells (AECs) have been demonstrated to be able to recognize diverse allergens leading to the release of chemokines, cytokines, and danger signals that activate and recruit other immune cells to the site of inflammation (6, 7).

In this review, we will discuss the role of dendritic and epithelial cells in allergen recognition and how the cross-talk between DCs and AEC could affect Th2-mediated allergic diseases.

ALLERGEN RECOGNITION BY DENDRITIC CELLS

Immature DCs reside in the peripheral tissues and can efficiently sample the microenvironment for antigens. Once taken up by DCs such antigens are processed into peptides and appear on the surface of DCs in the context of MHC molecules. Antigen bearing DC migrate to the local lymph nodes where through expression of MHCII-peptide complex, cytokines, and co-stimulatory molecules they can stimulate naïve T cells toward distinct effector T cell subsets (e.g., Th1, Th2, Th17) (8, 9) or induce tolerance through induction of regulatory T cells (10), depending on the nature of the antigen and other microenvironmental factors (11). DCs serve as sentinels of the mucosal surfaces, where they constantly sample antigens at the interface between external and internal environments using different PRRs (Figure 1). Even intraepithelial DCs are able to form tight junctions with epithelial cells through expression of proteins like occludin and claudin, which can further facilitate antigen/allergen recognition and uptake by these cells (7, 8). In addition, some allergens can gain access to DCs by disrupting the tight junctions (9–15); different mechanisms of allergen recognition and uptake by DCs will be further described in the following sections.

FIGURE 1 | Receptors involved in allergen recognition and uptake by DCs. MR can recognize allergens from diverse sources leading to Th2 polarization and IDO down-regulation in DCs involving a possible cross-talk with TLR4 (19). TLR4 itself can be activated by airborne allergens and diverse metals in an MD2 dependent or independent way (33, 35–37). FcεR facilitate allergen uptake through the recognition of the IgE-allergen complex (41, 46). DC-SIGN can recognize diverse allergens as well, however, leading to a Th1 polarization. Finally, TLR5 can be activated by HDM extracts containing flagellin (34).

C-TYPE LECTIN RECEPTORS

C-type lectin receptors are mainly involved in the recognition of glyco-allergens. Diverse C-type lectin receptors (CLRs), such as dendritic cell-specific intracellular adhesion molecule 3-grabbing non-integrin (DC-SIGN) and mannose receptor (MR) on human DCs have been shown to be able to recognize and internalize allergens.

MANNOSE RECEPTOR

This type-I integral transmembrane protein is primarily expressed by myeloid cells such as macrophages and DCs (4, 16). The extracellular portion of MR consists of three regions: a cysteine-rich domain, a fibronectin type II-like domain, and eight carbohydrate recognition domains (CRDs). Interestingly, DCs from patients with house dust mite (HDM) allergy have been shown to express higher levels of MR and to be more efficient in allergen uptake than DCs from non-atopic donors (17). More recently, it was reported that bronchoalveolar lavage fluid from patients with asthma and/or allergic rhinitis contains higher numbers of MR expressing myeloid-DCs compared to healthy controls (18). In terms of allergen uptake, in vitro studies have found that MR expressed on human monocyte-derived DCs is the main receptor for major allergens from HDM (Der p 1), dog (Can f 1), cockroach (Bla g 2), peanut (Ara h 1), and cat (Fel d 1) (19, 20). Similar studies have also highlighted MR’s role in allergen-induced Th2 cell differentiation where MR-deficient (MR−), as opposed to MR expressing (MR+), DCs failed to induce Th2 cell differentiation in response to Der p 1 in DC-T cell co-cultures from HDM atopic individuals. The bias toward Th1 cell polarization by MR− DCs was shown to be partially mediated through the up-regulation of indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase (IDO) activity in DCs (19). IDO is an enzyme that participates in tryptophan metabolism and is involved in many immune-regulatory processes in health and disease (21, 22). Further studies by the same group showed that MR recognition of major cat allergen Fel d 1 mediated the production of specific IgE and IgG1 antibodies in a mouse model of allergy (20). Other studies have shown that omega-1, a glycosylated T2 ribonuclease secreted by Schistosoma mansoni eggs, is recognized and internalized by DCs through MR and subsequently interferes with proteins synthesis and conditions DCs for Th2 priming (23). Collectively these data highlight MR’s role in allergen recognition and promotion of Th2-mediated immune responses.

DENDRITIC CELL-SPECIFIC INTRACELLULAR ADHESION MOLECULE 3-GRABBING NON-INTEGRIN

Dendritic cell-specific intracellular adhesion molecule 3-grabbing non-integrin is a type-II integral transmembrane protein that consists of four regions: a CRD, a hinge domain, and a transmembrane region connected to a cytoplasmic signaling domain (4, 24). DC-SIGN is mainly expressed by antigen presenting cells (APCs) and has been demonstrated to participate in the recognition of allergens from different sources, such as peanut, HDM, pollen, and dog (25–27). In vitro studies have been shown that DC-SIGN recognition and uptake of Der p 1 induces Th1 cell differentiation. On the contrary, DC-SIGN deficient DCs bias the response toward a Th2 profile (27). This is opposite to previous observations in MR− DCs which seem to support Th1 differentiation (19). Interestingly, it has also been shown that Der p 1, using its enzymatic activity, can cleave (28) and induce the down-regulation (29) of cell surface DC-SIGN but not MR (28). In this context, we have previously proposed that the Th1/Th2 balance in response to allergen exposure can be determined by the cross-talk between these receptors and the level of their expression on DCs (4, 27). Accordingly, it is important to note that DCs from asthmatic patients show lower expression of DC-SIGN (29), which is in contrast to the high levels of MR expression reported in atopic individuals (17, 18).

TOLL-LIKE RECEPTORS

The TLRs are type-I integral membrane receptors, each with an N-terminal ligand recognition domain constructed of tandem copies of a leucine-rich repeat motif, a single transmembrane helix, which participates in nucleic acid pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs) recognition, and a C-terminal cytoplasmic signaling domain known as Toll IL-1 receptor domain (30). There are more than 10 different TLRs identified in humans so far (31), with some of them being involved in allergen recognition or pathways that induces allergic responses. Within this context, mainly three different mechanisms have been proposed. Der p 2, a major allergen from HDM with lipid-binding activity, has been shown to induce signaling through TLR2 (32) and TLR4 (33) depending on the cell type involved. Due to its high homology with MD2, which participates in the recognition of lipopolysaccharide (LPS) by TLR4, Der p 2 forms a complex with TLR4 that signals similarly to MD2/TLR4 complex inducing innate immune activation (33). In addition, HDM extracts contaminated with flagellin can induce TLR5-dependent allergic responses in mice, however, the mechanism is still unclear (34). The second mechanism involves sensitization by nickel, which may not be relevant in the context of airway sensitization but highlights the importance of TLR4 on DCs in allergic reactions. Nickel and other bivalent metals such as cobalt induce a lipid-independent activation of TLR4, which is dependent on the presence of two histidine residues, promoting TLR4 dimerization and subsequent receptor activation independently of MD2 (35, 36). Finally, the last mechanism involves allergens such as Fel d 1 and Can f 6 that belong to lipocalin family and cause enhanced LPS-induced TLR4 activation in an MD2 dependent and independent manner respectively (37).

HIGH-AFFINITY IGE RECEPTOR

FcεRI is a multimeric cell surface receptor that binds IgE with high-affinity. In humans, this receptor can be expressed by mast cells, basophils, eosinophils, platelets, monocytes, and DCs; however, in the last four cell types it adopts a trimeric (αγ2) structure instead of the classical tetrameric (αβγ2) structure (38–43). It has been previously suggested that cell-bound IgE participates in the presentation of aero-allergens by Langerhans cells (44). In addition, the presence of FcεRI on Langerhans cells maximizes antigen uptake via specific IgE and subsequent presentation to T cells (45). In monocytes and peripheral blood DCs, FcεRI has been shown to mediate IgE-dependent allergen presentation (41, 46). Further studies in DCs demonstrated that multimeric ligands of FcεRI are delivered into a major histocompatibility complex class II compartment in a Cathepsin S-dependent pathway (47). In vivo experiments with a transgenic mouse model with human-like FcεRI expression in DCs showed that after allergen capture DCs instructed naïve T cells to differentiate into allergen-specific Th2 cells at the site of allergen exposure (48). Taking into account the fact that higher expression of FcεRI has been detected in atopic individuals (40, 42), this can lower the atopic individual’s threshold to mount allergen-specific T cell responses. All this highlights the fact that the high-affinity IgE receptor could play an important role in capturing allergens by DCs and subsequent presentation to T cell particularly in previously sensitized individuals with high levels of specific IgE; however, the precise role of IgE receptors and the role of other stimulatory and inhibitory Fc receptors (49, 50) in allergen presentation still need to be fully understood.

ALLERGEN RECOGNITION BY EPITHELIAL CELLS

Airway epithelial cells constitute the first line of defense against pathogens and allergens by not only forming a physical barrier, but also through expressing a wide range of PRR, such as TLRs, CLRs, and protease activated receptor (PARs) (Figure 2). These receptors enable AECs to recognize microbial motifs and environmental allergens which lead to a cascade of events culminating in the release of cytokines, chemokine ligands, and danger signals which recruit and activate other immune cells.

FIGURE 2 | Receptors involved in allergen recognition and uptake by AECs. TLR4 can be activated by pollen allergens and activate TSLP-OX40L signaling pathway (88). PAR-2 is activated by different allergens from HDM, cockroach, and fungus inducing the production of cytokines and chemokines that modulate DC behavior (60, 61, 64–67). Dectin-1 is able to recognize allergens from HDM and induce the secretion of CCL20 (90). In addition, the secretion of TSLP induced by Der p 1 in AECs is thought to be carbohydrate-dependent, however, no receptor has been identified (92).

PROTEASE ACTIVATED RECEPTORS

Protease activated receptors are G-protein coupled receptors characterized by a self-activation mechanism following proteolytic cleavage of their extracellular N-terminal domain. There are four PAR members identified to date. PAR-1,-3,-4 respond to the protease thrombin, expressed primarily by cells in the vasculature; and are mainly involved in homeostasis and thrombosis. Conversely, PAR-2 is activated by trypsin-like serine proteases but not by trypsin and can be found in airways, vascular, skin, and intestinal cells, and mediates proliferative and inflammatory responses linked to tissue damage (51, 52). In addition, endothelial cells, epithelial cells, fibroblasts, and immune cells such as lymphocytes, monocytes, mast cells, neutrophils, eosinophils, macrophages, and DCs have been shown to express functional PAR-2 (53, 54). Due to its ability to respond to serine proteases, proteolytic allergens from diverse sources such as HDM, cockroach, pollen, or mold can act as exogenous activators of PAR-2 with implications in allergy and asthma.

Different cysteine and serine proteases from HDM, pollen, and the fungus Penicillium have been shown to increase epithelial permeability and disrupt the tight junctions by mainly targeting the transmembrane adhesion proteins occludin and zonula occludens-1 (9–15). In addition, it has been demonstrated that allergen-induced cytokine production, cell detachment and morphological changes in AECs is largely dependent on allergens’ protease activity (13, 55–58). Protease-dependant induction of IL-25 and thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP) have been shown to be mediated by Erk and p38 MAPK pathways (58). More recently, it was demonstrated, in an in vivo model, that IL-33 also contributes to protease-dependent allergic airway inflammation (59).

Main allergens from HDM can activate PAR-2 and induce the release of pro-inflammatory cytokines (60, 61). However, there is some contradictory results showing that Der p 1-induction of IL-8 and IL-6 is independent of PAR-2 activation and dependent on nuclear factor κB (NF-κB) and Erk signaling pathways (62, 63). In the case of allergens from the German cockroach and the fungus Penicillium, this effect has been demonstrated to be mediated by the activation of Erk (64, 65). In an in vivo model of allergy, only when the allergens are administered through the mucosa, cockroach proteases regulate chemokine production and DC recruitment in a PAR-2-dependent way (66, 67). Furthermore, it was demonstrated that cockroach proteases augmented tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α-induction of the matrix metalloproteinases-9, an enzyme that has been implicated in the pathogenesis of bronchial asthma (68, 69), by a mechanism linking PAR-2, Erk, and AP-1 activation (70). More recently, PAR-2-mediated allergic sensitization was shown to be associated with TNF signaling pathways (71).

In addition to the proteolytic activity of some allergens, one of the main soluble mediators that accounts for the increase in epithelial permeability is the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). It has been shown that extract from cockroach increases bronchial airway epithelial permeability by inducing the release of VEGF (72). Besides, HDM extract can induce the secretion of VEGF by human pulmonary epithelial cells (73). Recently, it was demonstrated that HDM-induced redistribution of E-cadherin was mediated via epidermal growth factor receptor-dependent activation of PAR-2 and transforming growth factor-β (TGF-β) enhanced this signaling (74). Nevertheless, not only PAR-2 is directly involved in allergen-mediated cytokine production, it has also been shown that IL-8 production by AECs in response to allergens from the fungus Penicillium is dependent on PAR-1 and PAR-2 via activation of ERK1/2 (65). In addition, proteases from different fungal allergens induce the release of pro-inflammatory cytokines from human nasal polyp epithelial cells, leading to eosinophil and neutrophil migration, in a mechanism that could involve PAR-2 and PAR-3 (75).

TOLL-LIKE RECEPTOR-4

As previously described, TLRs are widely expressed by both APCs and epithelial cells and recognize conserved microbial structures and as such play a key role in controlling adaptive immune responses. LPS is recognized by TLR4 with the participation of the accessory proteins including CD14, LPS binding protein, and MD2. This leads to the recruitment of the signaling adapter protein MyD88, the activation of the transcription NF-κB among others, and the expression of pro-inflammatory cytokines (76). TLR4 (77–80), MyD88 (79, 81, 82), and NF-κB (83–86) have been shown to be crucial in the elicitation of allergic Th2 immune responses. Different studies using knock-out mice have demonstrated the importance of TLR4 expression in both hematopoietic radiosensitive and structural radioresistant cells in the induction of TLR4-dependent Th2 responses to intranasal allergens in the presence of endotoxin (77–80). In addition, it has been shown that the LPS dosage is crucial in driving either Th1 or Th2 responses, with lower levels of LPS inducing Th2 responses to inhaled allergens in a mouse model of allergic sensitization (87). Recently, it was shown that short ragweed pollen acts as a TLR4 agonist, initiating TLR4-dependet TSLP/OX40L signaling pathway, triggering Th2 allergic inflammation (88).

C-TYPE LECTIN RECEPTORS

C-Type Lectin Receptors are receptors that recognize oligosaccharide moieties among other molecular patterns on antigens including allergens (89). CLR’s role in allergen recognition and uptake by DCs is well established (4); moreover, they have also been shown to participate in allergen recognition by AECs. It was demonstrated that HDM induction of CCL20 by AECs was not protease or TLR4/2 dependant; however, it was mediated by β-glycan moieties within HDM extract. This effect was specific for HDM because other allergens, such as cockroach and ragweed, failed to induce this response (90). The authors suggest the involvement of the dectin-1/Syk signaling pathway, since Syk inhibition abrogated the HDM-induced CCL20 production (91). More recently, our group demonstrated that TSLP secretion by AECs upon stimulation with Der p 1 was at least partly carbohydrate-dependent. In addition, DC uptake of deglycosylated Der p 1 was considerably decreased compared with its natural (glycosylated) counterpart, indicating that glycosylation of allergens plays a crucial role in their recognition by immune and non-immune cells (92).

CROSS-TALK BETWEEN DENDRITIC AND EPITHELIAL CELLS

Due to their strategic location at the interface of external-internal environments, AECs are able to modulate and coordinate immune responses. Ample data have shown that the cross-talk between DCs and AECs is crucial in driving allergen-induced Th2 responses (6, 7). As previously described, the ligation of different PRR on AECs results in the secretion of chemokines (93–95), that attract DCs, and cytokines that induce DC maturation and activation. However, there are some contradictory results indicating that inducible signals driven by LPS in non-hematopoietic tissues such as AECs do not play an essential role in DCs activation (96). On the other hand other studies have demonstrated that AECs can induce DC maturation after LPS inhalation (81). Nevertheless a range of cytokines including TSLP, IL-33, IL-25, IL-1β, and granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) are known to be secreted by AECs after allergen challenge (6, 7) which are able to modulate DCs function (Figure 3). Here we focus on TSLP as a key cytokine in initiation and maintenance of allergic responses.

FIGURE 3 | Role of AECs in allergen sensitization. AECs can directly recognize allergens by PARs, TLRs or CLRs, and through NF-κB signaling, they induce the production of the cytokines (TSLP, GM-CSF, IL-33, IL-25, IL-1β), chemokine ligands (CCL2, CCL20), and danger signals (adenosine triphosphate, uric acid). TSLP has diverse effects on DCs and mast cells, which in absence of the cytokine IL-12 can lead to recruitment of Th2 cells and (eosinophils, Th2 polarization, and the onset of allergy or allergic asthma. Moreover, IL-25 can activate Th2 cells to produce pro-allergenic cytokines. On the other hand, DCs are able to form tight junction with AECs, and allergen can digest the tight junction and both phenomena contribute to facilitate the allergen sensitization process (6, 7).

ROLE OF TSLP

Thymic stromal lymphopoietin is a 140-amino acid four-helix-bundle cytokine that belongs to the IL-2 family of cytokines. This cytokine is mainly produced by AECs and is able to modulate DC by binding to its receptor complex composed by the TSLP receptor (TSLPR) and the IL-7 receptor (IL-7R) (97). This induces the production of Th2-attracting chemokines such as CCL22 and CCL17, and primes naïve T cells to produce IL-5, IL-4, TNF-α, IL-13, whereas down-regulate IL-10 and IFN-γ (98, 99) even in the absence of DCs in an IL-4 dependant way (100). TSLP induces the expression of OX40L in DCs which in turn has been shown to trigger Th2 cell polarization in the absence of IL-12 (101). Conversely, TSLP is also able to induce IL-12 secretion after CD40 ligation in DCs however still maintaining its Th2-polarizing effect (102). Furthermore, DCs activated with TSLP were able to induce the expansion of Th2 memory cells and help to maintain their phenotype (103).

Human epithelial cells can produce TSLP in response to diverse stimuli, such as microbial products, physical injury, ambient particulate matter, protease allergens, and either pro-inflammatory or Th2-polarizing cytokines (58, 104–108). Protease allergens induce TSLP in a PAR-2-dependent way (109) with the involving of MAPK signaling pathway (58) however inflammatory cytokines induction of TSLP is NF-κB signaling dependent (104, 106). In addition to DCs, TSLP can also activate mast cells and CD34+ blood hematopoietic progenitor cells to produce Th2 cytokines and in that way induce the innate phase of allergic immune responses (105, 110). Finally, TSLP can interfere with regulatory T cell development impairing the balance between tolerance and inflammation (111). Keratinocytes too can secrete functional TSLP after stimulation with pro-inflammatory or Th2-driven cytokines, and induces DC activation in human skin lesions of atopic dermatitis (112). Recently, it was demonstrated that DCs can also produce TSLP in response to TLR stimulation. Moreover, interestingly DCs from mice challenged with HDM extract express higher mRNA levels of TSLP than epithelial cells (113).

In vivo experiments have shown that TSLPR knock-out mice exhibited strong Th1 responses while Th2 responses were impaired and they failed to develop an inflammatory response to allergen challenge to lung (114) or skin (115). In addition, skin and lung over-expression of TSLP induces atopic dermatitis (116) and airway inflammation respectively (117). In an experimental model of allergic conjunctivitis it was demonstrated that after topical allergen challenge mucosal epithelial cells produce high levels of TSLP compared with controls leading to induction of allergic inflammation through the TSLP-OX40L signaling pathway (118). More recently, it was shown that the soluble TSLPS antagonist, comprised of the extracellular domain of the murine TSLPR and an IgG2a Fc tail, reduced the severity of airway inflammation by regulating DC function (119).

Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that TSLP and Th2-attracting chemokines are increased in airways of asthmatic subjects compared with normal controls (120). In addition, different studies have shown an association between genetic polymorphisms in the human IL-7Rα chain and TSLP genes with allergy, allergic rhinitis, and bronchial asthma further highlighting a possible link between these proteins and allergy (121–123).

CONCLUSION

Dendritic cells are professional APCs and sentinels of the immune system that efficiently sample allergens in the airways leading to a cascade of events that culminates in the induction of Th2 type immune responses. DCs are able to recognize and internalize allergens from diverse sources through expression of a plethora of receptors such as CLRs, TLRs, and FcεR. Recently, the role of AECs as key players in the modulation and induction of DCs in the airways has been highlighted. Like DCs, AECs are able to recognize allergens through several PRRs including PARs, CLRs, and TLRs. This further leads to the production of different cytokines, chemokines, and danger signals with the ability to initiate and propagate immune responses to allergens. Allergens have diverse molecular features such as specific oligosaccharide moieties, protease activity, lipid-binding properties, among others that can facilitate their recognition by immune and non-immune cells and contributes to their “allergenicity.” Better understanding of the molecular basis of early events at the interface of allergens and their receptors and the key soluble mediators/signaling pathways involved could lead to development of more effective therapeutic strategies for allergic diseases including allergic asthma. For instance, due to the contribution of TLRs and CLRs in the recognition of allergen by both DCs and AECs, agonist and antagonists to those receptors may provide new therapeutic targets to modulate allergic responses. In addition, different studies have highlighted the role of sugar moieties on allergens in their recognition and internalization by immune cells. Accordingly, different “glycoforms” of allergens with immunoregulatory properties could be developed and used in allergen-specific immunotherapy strategies. Finally, diverse intracellular and extracellular molecules have been implicated in the process of allergen recognition and sensitization. Further studies to decipher these mechanisms could pave the way for the rational design of more effective therapeutic entities for the treatment of allergic diseases.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

F. Salazar is a recipient of a PhD scholarship from the National Commission for Scientific and Technological Research (CONICYT), Chile.

ABBREVIATIONS

AEC, airway epithelial cell; APC, antigen presenting cell; CLR, C-type lectin receptor; CRD, carbohydrate recognition domain; DC, dendritic cell; DC-SIGN, dendritic cell-specific intracellular adhesion molecule 3-grabbing non-integrin; FcεR, Fcε receptor; GM-CSF, granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor; HDM, house dust mite; IDO, indoleamine 2,3 dioxygenase; LPS, lipopolysaccharide; MR, mannose receptor; NF-κB, nuclear factor κB; PAMP, pathogen-associated molecular pattern; PAR, protease activated receptor, PRR, pattern recognition receptor; TGF-β, transforming growth factor-β; TLR, toll-like receptor; TNF, tumor necrosis factor; TSLP, thymic stromal lymphopoietin; VEGF, vascular endothelial growth factor.

REFERENCES

1. Paul WE, Zhu J. How are T(H)2-type immune responses initiated and amplified? Nat Rev Immunol (2010) 10(4):225–35. doi:10.1038/nri2735

2. Karp CL. Guilt by intimate association: what makes an allergen an allergen? J Allergy Clin Immunol (2010) 125(5):955–60. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2010.03.002

3. Gill MA. The role of dendritic cells in asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2012) 129(4):889–901. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2012.02.028

4. Salazar F, Sewell HF, Shakib F, Ghaemmaghami AM. The role of lectins in allergic sensitization and allergic disease. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2013) 132(1):27–36. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2013.02.001

5. Shakib F, Ghaemmaghami AM, Sewell HF. The molecular basis of allergenicity. Trends Immunol (2008) 29(12):633–42. doi:10.1016/j.it.2008.08.007

6. Willart M, Hammad H. Lung dendritic cell-epithelial cell crosstalk in Th2 responses to allergens. Curr Opin Immunol (2011) 23(6):772–7. doi:10.1016/j.coi.2011.09.008

7. Hammad H, Lambrecht BN. Dendritic cells and epithelial cells: linking innate and adaptive immunity in asthma. Nat Rev Immunol (2008) 8(3):193–204. doi:10.1038/nri2275

8. Sung SS, Fu SM, Rose CE Jr, Gaskin F, Ju ST, Beaty SR. A major lung CD103 (alphaE)-beta7 integrin-positive epithelial dendritic cell population expressing Langerin and tight junction proteins. J Immunol (2006) 176(4):2161–72.

9. Herbert CA, King CM, Ring PC, Holgate ST, Stewart GA, Thompson PJ, et al. Augmentation of permeability in the bronchial epithelium by the house dust mite allergen Der p1. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol (1995) 12(4):369–78. doi:10.1165/ajrcmb.12.4.7695916

10. Roche N, Chinet TC, Belouchi NE, Julie C, Huchon GJ. Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus and bioelectric properties of airway epithelium: role of cysteine proteases. Eur Respir J (2000) 16(2):309–15. doi:10.1034/j.1399-3003.2000.16b20.x

11. Wan H, Winton HL, Soeller C, Gruenert DC, Thompson PJ, Cannell MB, et al. Quantitative structural and biochemical analyses of tight junction dynamics following exposure of epithelial cells to house dust mite allergen Der p 1. Clin Exp Allergy (2000) 30(5):685–98. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2222.2000.00820.x

12. Wan H, Winton HL, Soeller C, Taylor GW, Gruenert DC, Thompson PJ, et al. The transmembrane protein occludin of epithelial tight junctions is a functional target for serine peptidases from faecal pellets of Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus. Clin Exp Allergy (2001) 31(2):279–94. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2222.2001.00970.x

13. Tai HY, Tam MF, Chou H, Peng HJ, Su SN, Perng DW, et al. Pen ch 13 allergen induces secretion of mediators and degradation of occludin protein of human lung epithelial cells. Allergy (2006) 61(3):382–8. doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.2005.00958.x

14. Runswick S, Mitchell T, Davies P, Robinson C, Garrod DR. Pollen proteolytic enzymes degrade tight junctions. Respirology (2007) 12(6):834–42. doi:10.1111/j.1440-1843.2007.01175.x

15. Vinhas R, Cortes L, Cardoso I, Mendes VM, Manadas B, Todo-Bom A, et al. Pollen proteases compromise the airway epithelial barrier through degradation of transmembrane adhesion proteins and lung bioactive peptides. Allergy (2011) 66(8):1088–98. doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.2011.02598.x

16. Taylor PR, Gordon S, Martinez-Pomares L. The mannose receptor: linking homeostasis and immunity through sugar recognition. Trends Immunol (2005) 26(2):104–10. doi:10.1016/j.it.2004.12.001

17. Deslee G, Charbonnier AS, Hammad H, Angyalosi G, Tillie-Leblond I, Mantovani A, et al. Involvement of the mannose receptor in the uptake of Der p 1, a major mite allergen, by human dendritic cells. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2002) 110(5):763–70. doi:10.1067/mai.2002.129121

18. Kayserova J, Zentsova-Jaresova I, Budinsky V, Rozkova D, Kopecka J, Vernerova E, et al. Selective increase in blood dendritic cell antigen-3-positive dendritic cells in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid in allergic patients. Scand J Immunol (2012) 75(3):305–13. doi:10.1111/j.1365-3083.2011.02649.x

19. Royer PJ, Emara M, Yang C, Al-Ghouleh A, Tighe P, Jones N, et al. The mannose receptor mediates the uptake of diverse native allergens by dendritic cells and determines allergen-induced T cell polarization through modulation of IDO activity. J Immunol (2010) 185(3):1522–31. doi:10.4049/jimmunol.1000774

20. Emara M, Royer PJ, Abbas Z, Sewell HF, Mohamed GG, Singh S, et al. Recognition of the major cat allergen Fel d 1 through the cysteine-rich domain of the mannose receptor determines its allergenicity. J Biol Chem (2011) 286(15):13033–40. doi:10.1074/jbc.M111.220657

21. Munn DH, Mellor AL. Indoleamine 2,3 dioxygenase and metabolic control of immune responses. Trends Immunol (2012) 34(3):137–43. doi:10.1016/j.it.2012.10.001

22. Orabona C, Pallotta MT, Grohmann U. Different partners, opposite outcomes: a new perspective of IDO’s immunobiology. Mol Med (2012) 18(1):834–42. doi:10.2119/molmed.2012.00029

23. Everts B, Hussaarts L, Driessen NN, Meevissen MH, Schramm G, van der Ham AJ, et al. Schistosome-derived omega-1 drives Th2 polarization by suppressing protein synthesis following internalization by the mannose receptor. J Exp Med (2012) 209(10):1753–67. doi:10.1084/jem.20111381

24. Zhou T, Chen Y, Hao L, Zhang Y. DC-SIGN and immunoregulation. Cell Mol Immunol (2006) 3(4):279–83.

25. Shreffler WG, Castro RR, Kucuk ZY, Charlop-Powers Z, Grishina G, Yoo S, et al. The major glycoprotein allergen from Arachis hypogaea, Ara h 1, is a ligand of dendritic cell-specific ICAM-grabbing nonintegrin and acts as a Th2 adjuvant in vitro. J Immunol (2006) 177(6):3677–85.

26. Hsu SC, Chen CH, Tsai SH, Kawasaki H, Hung CH, Chu YT, et al. Functional interaction of common allergens and a C-type lectin receptor, dendritic cell-specific ICAM3-grabbing non-integrin (DC-SIGN), on human dendritic cells. J Biol Chem (2010) 285(11):7903–10. doi:10.1074/jbc.M109.058370

27. Emara M, Royer PJ, Mahdavi J, Shakib F, Ghaemmaghami AM. Retagging identifies dendritic cell-specific intercellular adhesion molecule-3 (ICAM3)-grabbing non-integrin (DC-SIGN) protein as a novel receptor for a major allergen from house dust mite. J Biol Chem (2012) 287(8):5756–63. doi:10.1074/jbc.M111.312520

28. Furmonaviciene R, Ghaemmaghami AM, Boyd SE, Jones NS, Bailey K, Willis AC, et al. The protease allergen Der p 1 cleaves cell surface DC-SIGN and DC-SIGNR: experimental analysis of in silico substrate identification and implications in allergic responses. Clin Exp Allergy (2007) 37(2):231–42. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2222.2007.02651.x

29. Huang HJ, Lin YL, Liu CF, Kao HF, Wang JY. Mite allergen decreases DC-SIGN expression and modulates human dendritic cell differentiation and function in allergic asthma. Mucosal Immunol (2011) 4(5):519–27. doi:10.1038/mi.2011.17

30. Botos I, Segal DM, Davies DR. The structural biology of toll-like receptors. Structure (2011) 19(4):447–59. doi:10.1016/j.str.2011.02.004

31. O’Neill LA, Golenbock D, Bowie AG. The history of toll-like receptors – redefining innate immunity. Nat Rev Immunol (2013) 13(6):453–60. doi:10.1038/nri3446

32. Chiou YL, Lin CY. Der p2 activates airway smooth muscle cells in a TLR2/MyD88-dependent manner to induce an inflammatory response. J Cell Physiol (2009) 220(2):311–8. doi:10.1002/jcp.21764

33. Trompette A, Divanovic S, Visintin A, Blanchard C, Hegde RS, Madan R, et al. Allergenicity resulting from functional mimicry of a Toll-like receptor complex protein. Nature (2009) 457(7229):585–8. doi:10.1038/nature07548

34. Wilson RH, Maruoka S, Whitehead GS, Foley JF, Flake GP, Sever ML, et al. The toll-like receptor 5 ligand flagellin promotes asthma by priming allergic responses to indoor allergens. Nat Med (2012) 18(11):1705–10. doi:10.1038/nm.2920

35. Schmidt M, Raghavan B, Muller V, Vogl T, Fejer G, Tchaptchet S, et al. Crucial role for human Toll-like receptor 4 in the development of contact allergy to nickel. Nat Immunol (2010) 11(9):814–9. doi:10.1038/ni.1919

36. Raghavan B, Martin SF, Esser PR, Goebeler M, Schmidt M. Metal allergens nickel and cobalt facilitate TLR4 homodimerization independently of MD2. EMBO Rep (2012) 13(12):1109–15. doi:10.1038/embor.2012.155

37. Herre J, Gronlund H, Brooks H, Hopkins L, Waggoner L, Murton B, et al. Allergens as immunomodulatory proteins: the cat dander protein Fel d 1 enhances TLR activation by lipid ligands. J Immunol (2013) 191(4):1529–35. doi:10.4049/jimmunol.1300284

38. Kinet JP. The high-affinity IgE receptor (Fc epsilon RI): from physiology to pathology. Annu Rev Immunol (1999) 17:931–72. doi:10.1146/annurev.immunol.17.1.931

39. Bieber T, de la Salle H, Wollenberg A, Hakimi J, Chizzonite R, Ring J, et al. Human epidermal Langerhans cells express the high affinity receptor for immunoglobulin E (Fc epsilon RI). J Exp Med (1992) 175(5):1285–90. doi:10.1084/jem.175.5.1285

40. Maurer D, Fiebiger E, Reininger B, Wolff-Winiski B, Jouvin MH, Kilgus O, et al. Expression of functional high affinity immunoglobulin E receptors (Fc epsilon RI) on monocytes of atopic individuals. J Exp Med (1994) 179(2):745–50. doi:10.1084/jem.179.2.745

41. Maurer D, Fiebiger S, Ebner C, Reininger B, Fischer GF, Wichlas S, et al. Peripheral blood dendritic cells express Fc epsilon RI as a complex composed of Fc epsilon RI alpha- and Fc epsilon RI gamma-chains and can use this receptor for IgE-mediated allergen presentation. J Immunol (1996) 157(2):607–16.

42. Tunon-De-Lara JM, Redington AE, Bradding P, Church MK, Hartley JA, Semper AE, et al. Dendritic cells in normal and asthmatic airways: expression of the alpha subunit of the high affinity immunoglobulin E receptor (Fc epsilon RI-alpha). Clin Exp Allergy (1996) 26(6):648–55. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2222.1996.1095481.x

43. Novak N, Allam JP, Hagemann T, Jenneck C, Laffer S, Valenta R, et al. Characterization of FcepsilonRI-bearing CD123 blood dendritic cell antigen-2 plasmacytoid dendritic cells in atopic dermatitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2004) 114(2):364–70. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2004.05.038

44. Mudde GC, Van Reijsen FC, Boland GJ, de Gast GC, Bruijnzeel PL, Bruijnzeel-Koomen CA. Allergen presentation by epidermal Langerhans’ cells from patients with atopic dermatitis is mediated by IgE. Immunology (1990) 69(3):335–41.

45. Bieber T. Fc epsilon RI on human epidermal Langerhans cells: an old receptor with new structure and functions. Int Arch Allergy Immunol (1997) 113(1-3):30–4. doi:10.1159/000237500

46. Maurer D, Ebner C, Reininger B, Fiebiger E, Kraft D, Kinet JP, et al. The high affinity IgE receptor (Fc epsilon RI) mediates IgE-dependent allergen presentation. J Immunol (1995) 154(12):6285–90.

47. Maurer D, Fiebiger E, Reininger B, Ebner C, Petzelbauer P, Shi GP, et al. Fc epsilon receptor I on dendritic cells delivers IgE-bound multivalent antigens into a cathepsin S-dependent pathway of MHC class II presentation. J Immunol (1998) 161(6):2731–9.

48. Sallmann E, Reininger B, Brandt S, Duschek N, Hoflehner E, Garner-Spitzer E, et al. High-affinity IgE receptors on dendritic cells exacerbate Th2-dependent inflammation. J Immunol (2011) 187(1):164–71. doi:10.4049/jimmunol.1003392

49. Wigginton SJ, Furtado PB, Armour KL, Clark MR, Robins A, Emara M, et al. An immunoglobulin E-reactive chimeric human immunoglobulin G1 anti-idiotype inhibits basophil degranulation through cross-linking of FcepsilonRI with FcgammaRIIb. Clin Exp Allergy (2008) 38(2):313–9. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2222.2007.02896.x

50. Nakamura A, Kubo T, Takai T. Fc receptor targeting in the treatment of allergy, autoimmune diseases and cancer. Adv Exp Med Biol (2008) 640:220–33. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-09789-3_17

51. Lee SE, Jeong SK, Lee SH. Protease and protease-activated receptor-2 signaling in the pathogenesis of atopic dermatitis. Yonsei Med J (2010) 51(6):808–22. doi:10.3349/ymj.2010.51.6.808

52. Arora P, Ricks TK, Trejo J. Protease-activated receptor signalling, endocytic sorting and dysregulation in cancer. J Cell Sci (2007) 120(Pt 6):921–8. doi:10.1242/jcs.03409

53. Steinhoff M, Corvera CU, Thoma MS, Kong W, McAlpine BE, Caughey GH, et al. Proteinase-activated receptor-2 in human skin: tissue distribution and activation of keratinocytes by mast cell tryptase. Exp Dermatol (1999) 8(4):282–94. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0625.1999.tb00383.x

54. Rattenholl A, Steinhoff M. Proteinase-activated receptor-2 in the skin: receptor expression, activation and function during health and disease. Drug News Perspect (2008) 21(7):369–81. doi:10.1358/dnp.2008.21.7.1255294

55. Tomee JF, van Weissenbruch R, de Monchy JG, Kauffman HF. Interactions between inhalant allergen extracts and airway epithelial cells: effect on cytokine production and cell detachment. J Allergy Clin Immunol (1998) 102(1):75–85. doi:10.1016/S0091-6749(98)70057-0

56. King C, Brennan S, Thompson PJ, Stewart GA. Dust mite proteolytic allergens induce cytokine release from cultured airway epithelium. J Immunol (1998) 161(7):3645–51.

57. Kauffman HF, Tomee JF, van de Riet MA, Timmerman AJ, Borger P. Protease-dependent activation of epithelial cells by fungal allergens leads to morphologic changes and cytokine production. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2000) 105(6 Pt 1):1185–93. doi:10.1067/mai.2000.106210

58. Yu HS, Angkasekwinai P, Chang SH, Chung Y, Dong C. Protease allergens induce the expression of IL-25 via Erk and p38 MAPK pathway. J Korean Med Sci (2010) 25(6):829–34. doi:10.3346/jkms.2010.25.6.829

59. Kamijo S, Takeda H, Tokura T, Suzuki M, Inui K, Hara M, et al. IL-33-mediated innate response and adaptive immune cells contribute to maximum responses of protease allergen-induced allergic airway inflammation. J Immunol (2013) 190(9):4489–99. doi:10.4049/jimmunol.1201212

60. Sun G, Stacey MA, Schmidt M, Mori L, Mattoli S. Interaction of mite allergens Der p3 and Der p9 with protease-activated receptor-2 expressed by lung epithelial cells. J Immunol (2001) 167(2):1014–21.

61. Asokananthan N, Graham PT, Stewart DJ, Bakker AJ, Eidne KA, Thompson PJ, et al. House dust mite allergens induce proinflammatory cytokines from respiratory epithelial cells: the cysteine protease allergen, Der p 1, activates protease-activated receptor (PAR)-2 and inactivates PAR-1. J Immunol (2002) 169(8):4572–8.

62. Adam E, Hansen KK, Astudillo Fernandez O, Coulon L, Bex F, Duhant X, et al. The house dust mite allergen Der p 1, unlike Der p 3, stimulates the expression of interleukin-8 in human airway epithelial cells via a proteinase-activated receptor-2-independent mechanism. J Biol Chem (2006) 281(11):6910–23. doi:10.1074/jbc.M507140200

63. Kauffman HF, Tamm M, Timmerman JA, Borger P. House dust mite major allergens Der p 1 and Der p 5 activate human airway-derived epithelial cells by protease-dependent and protease-independent mechanisms. Clin Mol Allergy (2006) 4:5. doi:10.1186/1476-7961-4-5

64. Page K, Strunk VS, Hershenson MB. Cockroach proteases increase IL-8 expression in human bronchial epithelial cells via activation of protease-activated receptor (PAR)-2 and extracellular-signal-regulated kinase. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2003) 112(6):1112–8. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2003.08.050

65. Chiu LL, Perng DW, Yu CH, Su SN, Chow LP. Mold allergen, pen C 13, induces IL-8 expression in human airway epithelial cells by activating protease-activated receptor 1 and 2. J Immunol (2007) 178(8):5237–44.

66. Page K, Ledford JR, Zhou P, Dienger K, Wills-Karp M. Mucosal sensitization to German cockroach involves protease-activated receptor-2. Respir Res (2010) 11:62. doi:10.1186/1465-9921-11-62

67. Day SB, Ledford JR, Zhou P, Lewkowich IP, Page K. German cockroach proteases and protease-activated receptor-2 regulate chemokine production and dendritic cell recruitment. J Innate Immun (2012) 4(1):100–10. doi:10.1159/000329132

68. Lee YC, Lee HB, Rhee YK, Song CH. The involvement of matrix metalloproteinase-9 in airway inflammation of patients with acute asthma. Clin Exp Allergy (2001) 31(10):1623–30. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2222.2001.01211.x

69. Kelly EA, Busse WW, Jarjour NN. Increased matrix metalloproteinase-9 in the airway after allergen challenge. Am J Respir Crit Care Med (2000) 162(3 Pt 1):1157–61. doi:10.1164/ajrccm.162.3.9908016

70. Page K, Hughes VS, Bennett GW, Wong HR. German cockroach proteases regulate matrix metalloproteinase-9 in human bronchial epithelial cells. Allergy (2006) 61(8):988–95. doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.2006.01103.x

71. Ebeling C, Lam T, Gordon JR, Hollenberg MD, Vliagoftis H. Proteinase-activated receptor-2 promotes allergic sensitization to an inhaled antigen through a TNF-mediated pathway. J Immunol (2007) 179(5):2910–7.

72. Antony AB, Tepper RS, Mohammed KA. Cockroach extract antigen increases bronchial airway epithelial permeability. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2002) 110(4):589–95. doi:10.1067/mai.2002.127798

73. Capetandes A, Zhuang M, Haque FN, Xie L, Frieri M. Vascular endothelial growth factor is increased by human pulmonary cells stimulated with Dermatophagoides sp. extract. Allergy Asthma Proc (2007) 28(3):324–30. doi:10.2500/aap.2007.28.2999

74. Heijink IH, van Oosterhout A, Kapus A. Epidermal growth factor receptor signalling contributes to house dust mite-induced epithelial barrier dysfunction. Eur Respir J (2010) 36(5):1016–26. doi:10.1183/09031936.00125809

75. Shin SH, Lee YH, Jeon CH. Protease-dependent activation of nasal polyp epithelial cells by airborne fungi leads to migration of eosinophils and neutrophils. Acta Otolaryngol (2006) 126(12):1286–94. doi:10.1080/00016480500395179

76. Takeda K, Kaisho T, Akira S. Toll-like receptors. Annu Rev Immunol (2003) 21:335–76. doi:10.1146/annurev.immunol.21.120601.141126

77. Dabbagh K, Dahl ME, Stepick-Biek P, Lewis DB. Toll-like receptor 4 is required for optimal development of Th2 immune responses: role of dendritic cells. J Immunol (2002) 168(9):4524–30.

78. Hammad H, Chieppa M, Perros F, Willart MA, Germain RN, Lambrecht BN. House dust mite allergen induces asthma via Toll-like receptor 4 triggering of airway structural cells. Nat Med (2009) 15(4):410–6. doi:10.1038/nm.1946

79. Phipps S, Lam CE, Kaiko GE, Foo SY, Collison A, Mattes J, et al. Toll/IL-1 signaling is critical for house dust mite-specific helper T cell type 2 and type 17 [corrected] responses. Am J Respir Crit Care Med (2009) 179(10):883–93. doi:10.1164/rccm.200806-974OC

80. Tan AM, Chen HC, Pochard P, Eisenbarth SC, Herrick CA, Bottomly HK. TLR4 signaling in stromal cells is critical for the initiation of allergic Th2 responses to inhaled antigen. J Immunol (2010) 184(7):3535–44. doi:10.4049/jimmunol.0900340

81. Noulin N, Quesniaux VF, Schnyder-Candrian S, Schnyder B, Maillet I, Robert T, et al. Both hemopoietic and resident cells are required for MyD88-dependent pulmonary inflammatory response to inhaled endotoxin. J Immunol (2005) 175(10):6861–9.

82. Piggott DA, Eisenbarth SC, Xu L, Constant SL, Huleatt JW, Herrick CA, et al. MyD88-dependent induction of allergic Th2 responses to intranasal antigen. J Clin Invest (2005) 115(2):459–67. doi:10.1172/JCI200522462

83. Poynter ME, Cloots R, van Woerkom T, Butnor KJ, Vacek P, Taatjes DJ, et al. NF-kappa B activation in airways modulates allergic inflammation but not hyperresponsiveness. J Immunol (2004) 173(11):7003–9.

84. Skerrett SJ, Liggitt HD, Hajjar AM, Ernst RK, Miller SI, Wilson CB. Respiratory epithelial cells regulate lung inflammation in response to inhaled endotoxin. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol (2004) 287(1):L143–52. doi:10.1152/ajplung.00030.2004

85. Sheller JR, Polosukhin VV, Mitchell D, Cheng DS, Peebles RS, Blackwell TS. Nuclear factor kappa B induction in airway epithelium increases lung inflammation in allergen-challenged mice. Exp Lung Res (2009) 35(10):883–95. doi:10.3109/01902140903019710

86. Ather JL, Hodgkins SR, Janssen-Heininger YM, Poynter ME. Airway epithelial NF-kappaB activation promotes allergic sensitization to an innocuous inhaled antigen. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol (2011) 44(5):631–8. doi:10.1165/rcmb.2010-0106OC

87. Eisenbarth SC, Piggott DA, Huleatt JW, Visintin I, Herrick CA, Bottomly K. Lipopolysaccharide-enhanced, toll-like receptor 4-dependent T helper cell type 2 responses to inhaled antigen. J Exp Med (2002) 196(12):1645–51. doi:10.1084/jem.20021340

88. Li DQ, Zhang L, Pflugfelder SC, De Paiva CS, Zhang X, Zhao G, et al. Short ragweed pollen triggers allergic inflammation through Toll-like receptor 4-dependent thymic stromal lymphopoietin/OX40 ligand/OX40 signaling pathways. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2011) 128:1318.e–25.e. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2011.06.041

89. Sancho D, Reis e Sousa C. Signaling by myeloid C-type lectin receptors in immunity and homeostasis. Annu Rev Immunol (2012) 30:491–529. doi:10.1146/annurev-immunol-031210-101352

90. Nathan AT, Peterson EA, Chakir J, Wills-Karp M. Innate immune responses of airway epithelium to house dust mite are mediated through beta-glucan-dependent pathways. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2009) 123(3):612–8. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2008.12.006

91. Brown GD, Herre J, Williams DL, Willment JA, Marshall AS, Gordon S. Dectin-1 mediates the biological effects of beta-glucans. J Exp Med (2003) 197(9):1119–24. doi:10.1084/jem.20021890

92. Al-Ghouleh A, Johal R, Sharquie IK, Emara M, Harrington H, Shakib F, et al. The glycosylation pattern of common allergens: the recognition and uptake of Der p 1 by epithelial and dendritic cells is carbohydrate dependent. PLoS ONE (2012) 7(3):e33929. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0033929

93. Reibman J, Hsu Y, Chen LC, Bleck B, Gordon T. Airway epithelial cells release MIP-3alpha/CCL20 in response to cytokines and ambient particulate matter. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol (2003) 28(6):648–54. doi:10.1165/rcmb.2002-0095OC

94. Pichavant M, Charbonnier AS, Taront S, Brichet A, Wallaert B, Pestel J, et al. Asthmatic bronchial epithelium activated by the proteolytic allergen Der p 1 increases selective dendritic cell recruitment. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2005) 115(4):771–8. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2004.11.043

95. Stumbles PA, Strickland DH, Pimm CL, Proksch SF, Marsh AM, McWilliam AS, et al. Regulation of dendritic cell recruitment into resting and inflamed airway epithelium: use of alternative chemokine receptors as a function of inducing stimulus. J Immunol (2001) 167(1):228–34.

96. Nolte MA, Leibundgut-Landmann S, Joffre O, Reis e Sousa C. Dendritic cell quiescence during systemic inflammation driven by LPS stimulation of radioresistant cells in vivo. J Exp Med (2007) 204(6):1487–501. doi:10.1084/jem.20070325

97. Takai T. TSLP expression: cellular sources, triggers, and regulatory mechanisms. Allergol Int (2012) 61(1):3–17. doi:10.2332/allergolint.11-RAI-0395

98. Soumelis V, Reche PA, Kanzler H, Yuan W, Edward G, Homey B, et al. Human epithelial cells trigger dendritic cell mediated allergic inflammation by producing TSLP. Nat Immunol (2002) 3(7):673–80. doi:10.1038/ni805

99. Larson RP, Comeau MR, Ziegler SF. Cutting edge: allergen-specific CD4 T cells respond indirectly to thymic stromal lymphopoietin to promote allergic responses in the skin. J Immunol (2013) 190(9):4474–7. doi:10.4049/jimmunol.1201677

100. Omori M, Ziegler S. Induction of IL-4 expression in CD4(+) T cells by thymic stromal lymphopoietin. J Immunol (2007) 178(3):1396–404.

101. Ito T, Wang YH, Duramad O, Hori T, Delespesse GJ, Watanabe N, et al. TSLP-activated dendritic cells induce an inflammatory T helper type 2 cell response through OX40 ligand. J Exp Med (2005) 202(9):1213–23. doi:10.1084/jem.20051135

102. Watanabe N, Hanabuchi S, Marloie-Provost MA, Antonenko S, Liu YJ, Soumelis V. Human TSLP promotes CD40 ligand-induced IL-12 production by myeloid dendritic cells but maintains their Th2 priming potential. Blood (2005) 105(12):4749–51. doi:10.1182/blood-2004-09-3622

103. Wang YH, Ito T, Homey B, Watanabe N, Martin R, Barnes CJ, et al. Maintenance and polarization of human TH2 central memory T cells by thymic stromal lymphopoietin-activated dendritic cells. Immunity (2006) 24(6):827–38. doi:10.1016/j.immuni.2006.03.019

104. Kato A, Favoreto S Jr, Avila PC, Schleimer RP. TLR3- and Th2 cytokine-dependent production of thymic stromal lymphopoietin in human airway epithelial cells. J Immunol (2007) 179(2):1080–7.

105. Allakhverdi Z, Comeau MR, Jessup HK, Yoon BR, Brewer A, Chartier S, et al. Thymic stromal lymphopoietin is released by human epithelial cells in response to microbes, trauma, or inflammation and potently activates mast cells. J Exp Med (2007) 204(2):253–8. doi:10.1084/jem.20062211

106. Lee HC, Ziegler SF. Inducible expression of the proallergic cytokine thymic stromal lymphopoietin in airway epithelial cells is controlled by NFkappaB. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A (2007) 104(3):914–9. doi:10.1073/pnas.0607305104

107. Bleck B, Tse DB, Curotto de Lafaille MA, Zhang F, Reibman J. Diesel exhaust particle-exposed human bronchial epithelial cells induce dendritic cell maturation and polarization via thymic stromal lymphopoietin. J Clin Immunol (2008) 28(2):147–56. doi:10.1007/s10875-007-9149-0

108. Bleck B, Grunig G, Chiu A, Liu M, Gordon T, Kazeros A, et al. MicroRNA-375 regulation of thymic stromal lymphopoietin by diesel exhaust particles and ambient particulate matter in human bronchial epithelial cells. J Immunol (2013) 190(7):3757–63. doi:10.4049/jimmunol.1201165

109. Kouzaki H, O’Grady SM, Lawrence CB, Kita H. Proteases induce production of thymic stromal lymphopoietin by airway epithelial cells through protease-activated receptor-2. J Immunol (2009) 183(2):1427–34. doi:10.4049/jimmunol.0900904

110. Allakhverdi Z, Comeau MR, Smith DE, Toy D, Endam LM, Desrosiers M, et al. CD34+ hemopoietic progenitor cells are potent effectors of allergic inflammation. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2009) 123(2):472–8. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2008.10.022

111. Lei L, Zhang Y, Yao W, Kaplan MH, Zhou B. Thymic stromal lymphopoietin interferes with airway tolerance by suppressing the generation of antigen-specific regulatory T cells. J Immunol (2011) 186(4):2254–61. doi:10.4049/jimmunol.1002503

112. Bogiatzi SI, Fernandez I, Bichet JC, Marloie-Provost MA, Volpe E, Sastre X, et al. Cutting Edge: Proinflammatory and Th2 cytokines synergize to induce thymic stromal lymphopoietin production by human skin keratinocytes. J Immunol (2007) 178(6):3373–7.

113. Kashyap M, Rochman Y, Spolski R, Samsel L, Leonard WJ. Thymic stromal lymphopoietin is produced by dendritic cells. J Immunol (2011) 187(3):1207–11. doi:10.4049/jimmunol.1100355

114. Al-Shami A, Spolski R, Kelly J, Keane-Myers A, Leonard WJ. A role for TSLP in the development of inflammation in an asthma model. J Exp Med (2005) 202(6):829–39. doi:10.1084/jem.20050199

115. Larson RP, Zimmerli SC, Comeau MR, Itano A, Omori M, Iseki M, et al. Dibutyl phthalate-induced thymic stromal lymphopoietin is required for Th2 contact hypersensitivity responses. J Immunol (2010) 184(6):2974–84. doi:10.4049/jimmunol.0803478

116. Yoo J, Omori M, Gyarmati D, Zhou B, Aye T, Brewer A, et al. Spontaneous atopic dermatitis in mice expressing an inducible thymic stromal lymphopoietin transgene specifically in the skin. J Exp Med (2005) 202(4):541–9. doi:10.1084/jem.20041503

117. Zhou B, Comeau MR, De Smedt T, Liggitt HD, Dahl ME, Lewis DB, et al. Thymic stromal lymphopoietin as a key initiator of allergic airway inflammation in mice. Nat Immunol (2005) 6(10):1047–53. doi:10.1038/ni1247

118. Zheng X, Ma P, de Paiva CS, Cunningham MA, Hwang CS, Pflugfelder SC, et al. TSLP and downstream molecules in experimental mouse allergic conjunctivitis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci (2010) 51(6):3076–82. doi:10.1167/iovs.09-4122

119. Zhang F, Huang G, Hu B, Song Y, Shi Y. A soluble thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP) antagonist, TSLPR-immunoglobulin, reduces the severity of allergic disease by regulating pulmonary dendritic cells. Clin Exp Immunol (2011) 164(2):256–64. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2249.2011.04328.x

120. Ying S, O’Connor B, Ratoff J, Meng Q, Mallett K, Cousins D, et al. Thymic stromal lymphopoietin expression is increased in asthmatic airways and correlates with expression of Th2-attracting chemokines and disease severity. J Immunol (2005) 174(12):8183–90.

121. Shamim Z, Muller K, Svejgaard A, Poulsen LK, Bodtger U, Ryder LP. Association between genetic polymorphisms in the human interleukin-7 receptor alpha-chain and inhalation allergy. Int J Immunogenet (2007) 34(3):149–51. doi:10.1111/j.1744-313X.2007.00657.x

122. Bunyavanich S, Melen E, Wilk JB, Granada M, Soto-Quiros ME, Avila L, et al. Thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP) is associated with allergic rhinitis in children with asthma. Clin Mol Allergy (2011) 9:1. doi:10.1186/1476-7961-9-1

123. Harada M, Hirota T, Jodo AI, Hitomi Y, Sakashita M, Tsunoda T, et al. Thymic stromal lymphopoietin gene promoter polymorphisms are associated with susceptibility to bronchial asthma. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol (2011) 44(6):787–93. doi:10.1165/rcmb.2009-0418OC

Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Received: 29 August 2013; accepted: 21 October 2013; published online: 04 November 2013.

Citation: Salazar F and Ghaemmaghami AM (2013) Allergen recognition by innate immune cells: critical role of dendritic and epithelial cells. Front. Immunol. 4:356. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2013.00356

This article was submitted to Immunotherapies and Vaccines, a section of the journal Frontiers in Immunology.

Copyright © 2013 Salazar and Ghaemmaghami. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

MINI REVIEW ARTICLE
published: 14 March 2014
doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2014.00081

New vaccines for mammalian allergy using molecular approaches

Marianne van Hage[1] and Gabrielle Pauli[2]*

1 Clinical Immunology and Allergy Unit, Department of Medicine Solna, Karolinska Institutet and University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden

2 Faculty of Medicine, Strasbourg University, Strasbourg, France

Edited by:

Christiane Hilger, Centre de Recherche Public de la Santé, Luxembourg

Reviewed by:

Mark Larché, McMaster University, Canada
Margarete Focke-Tejkl, Medical University of Vienna, Austria

*Correspondence:

Gabrielle Pauli, Hôpitaux Universitaires de Strasbourg, BP 426, Strasbourg Cédex 67091, France
e-mail: gabrielle.pauli@chru-strasbourg.fr

Allergen-specific immunotherapy (SIT) offers a disease specific causative treatment by modifying the allergen-specific immune response allowing tolerance to higher doses of allergen and preventing progression of allergic diseases. It may be considered in patients allergic to furry animals. Current mammalian allergy vaccines are still prepared from relatively poorly defined allergen extracts and may induce immediate and late phase side effects. Although the mechanisms of SIT are still not fully understood, the more recent approaches report different strategies to reduce both allergen-specific IgE as well as T cell reactivity. The availability of recombinant allergens and synthetic peptides from the mammalian species has contributed to formulating new allergy vaccines to improve SIT for furry animal allergy. The majority of studies have focused on the major cat allergen Fel d 1 due to its extensive characterization in terms of IgE and T cell epitopes and to its dominant role in cat allergy. Here we review the most recent approaches, e.g., synthetic peptides, recombinant allergen derivatives, different hypoallergenic molecules, and recombinant allergens coupled to virus-like particles or immunomodulatory substances as well as strategies targeting the allergen to Fcγ receptors and the MHC class II pathway using a new route for administration. Many of the new vaccines hold promise but only a few of them have been investigated in clinical trials which will be the gold standard for evaluation of safety and efficacy in allergic patients.

Keywords: allergen-specific immunotherapy, Fel d 1, mammalian allergens, recombinant allergens, T cell peptides, vaccines

INTRODUCTION

Allergen-specific immunotherapy (SIT) offers a disease specific causative treatment by inducing tolerance to the allergen and preventing progression of allergic diseases, for example development of asthma (1). Hence, patients who suffer from allergies where avoidance is not possible such as house-dust mite respiratory allergies are the prime candidates for SIT. Allergy to cats, dogs, or other furry animals is common in society and the prevalence of sensitization to pets has increased (2). Although the best treatment is avoidance, it is often difficult to realize as well as not being well accepted by the patients. Moreover allergens from furry animals, e.g., the major cat allergen Fel d 1 is equally present in houses without cats, in public places, public transport, day care centers, and school rooms. So the question of SIT may be considered. Allergen-specific immunotherapy for cat allergy has shown to be more favorable than for, e.g., dog allergy (3). This may depend on the standardization of cat extracts to Fel d 1, whereas dog extracts may vary greatly in terms of allergen content (4).

The mechanisms of SIT are still not fully understood. The clinical efficacy is associated with the production of allergen-specific blocking immunoglobulin (Ig)G antibodies and the generation of T regulatory cell (T regs) responses and secretion of immunoregulatory cytokines such as interleukin 10 (5, 6); however, current SIT involves drawbacks such as treatment persistence, due to the long treatment duration both with subcutaneous SIT and sublingual immunotherapy (7). Furthermore, SIT of today can induce adverse reactions ranging from mild symptoms to life-threatening anaphylaxis and even death (8).

Allergy vaccines of today are still made from crude allergen extracts, which are not well-defined. Since the structures of the most common allergen molecules are now available, well-defined recombinant and synthetic allergy vaccines can be generated allowing targeting specific mechanisms of allergic disease without increasing their allergenicity (9–11). Many of these new molecular approaches concern pollen allergens. It has been shown that SIT with the recombinant major birch allergen Bet v 1 is equally effective as SIT with birch pollen extract or natural purified Bet v 1 (12). In this review, we describe different approaches for new vaccines, e.g., recombinant allergen derivatives, different hypoallergenic molecules, and recombinant allergens coupled to virus-like particles or to immunomodulatory substances. Studies being available concern principally evaluation of the cat major allergen, either in animal models or in allergic patients.

GENERAL CONCEPTS TO INCREASE SAFETY OF ALLERGY VACCINES

Side effects are related to the production of allergen-specific IgE antibodies but can also be mediated by the allergen-specific T cells. Several studies during the last years have used an allergen-unrelated carrier molecule, which provides T cell help for the production of IgG antibodies but avoid the activation of allergen-specific T cells. This approach would reduce T cell mediated side effects. Different strategies to reduce both IgE as well as allergen-specific T cell epitopes have been reported. These approaches will lead to less IgE and T cell-mediated side effects (11, 13).

- Strategies targeting allergen-specific T cells by using T cell epitope-containing peptides (synthetic molecules produced by chemical synthesis), which give no IgE-mediated activation of effector cells.

- Strategies reducing allergen-specific IgE reactivity, but conserving T cell reactivity.

- Strategies based on carrier-bound fusion proteins using peptides. These allergen derived peptides are obtained from the IgE-binding sites of the allergen but contain no or reduced allergen-specific T cell epitopes and exhibit no or strongly reduced IgE reactivity. The peptides are fused to an allergen-unrelated viral carrier molecule and expressed as recombinant proteins. This technology was promoted by the Vienna group and a grass-pollen allergy vaccine based on carrier-bound peptides of the four major grass-pollen allergens is now under evaluation in a clinical phase II trial (11, 13–15).

Several other strategies for improving SIT have been described in the studies published within the last years: e.g., targeting the allergen to Fcγ receptors (16), targeting the MHC class II pathway (17), linking allergens to CpG-containing nucleotides (18, 19) or to carbohydrate-based particles (20), and co-administrating allergens with immunomodulatory substances such as vitamin D3 (21, 22). DNA vaccines favoring specific Th1 responses may also be used with different adjuvants such as CpG. mRNAs encoding allergens are another possible strategy, which would improve the safety of therapeutic nucleic acid-based vaccines. Moreover, different routes for SIT have been investigated using recombinant allergens especially sublingual, epicutaneous, and intra-lymphatic delivery of the allergen (23).

Table 1 provides a summary of these approaches that have been applied for furry animal allergen SIT. It is interesting to note that the majority of studies have focused on the major cat allergen Fel d 1 due to its dominant role in cat allergy and to its extensively characterization in terms of IgE and T cell epitopes.

Table 1 | Concepts and strategies for improving SIT for mammalian allergy.

T CELL PEPTIDES

T cell peptides were originally designed to modulate allergen-specific T cell responses without IgE-mediated activation of effector cells (35). Following preclinical studies (36), a series of clinical trials were performed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of two polypeptides from the major cat allergen Fel d 1. Initially, patients received a subcutaneous injection weekly for 4 weeks with an equimolecular mixture of the peptides (ALLERVAX CAT; Immunologic Pharmaceutical Corporation, Waltham, MA, USA, an equimolar combination of two 27-aminoacid synthetic peptides), 7.5, 75, and 750 μg, or placebo. Significant improvements in lung and nasal symptoms were observed in the high dose group but many adverse events occurred several hours after peptide injection (37). A subsequent multicenter study in which patients received eight injections of 750 μg of vaccine reported only modest clinical improvement and immediate and late side effects were observed (38). Further developments using a mixture of 12 short peptides comprising the majority of the T cell epitopes from Fel d 1 demonstrated that changes in the quality of life of the active treated group versus the placebo group, but isolated late asthmatic reactions were still observed (24). In a recent study, a new vaccine was developed consisting of a mixture of seven immunodominant peptides (ToleroMune cat®, also known as cat PAD, Circassia Ltd, Oxford, UK), which were selected on the basis of MHC-binding characteristics. This approach allowed reducing the number of peptides without substantially compromising population coverage. The safety and tolerability of the vaccine was evaluated in a phase IIa study (25) where cat-allergic individuals were given a single dose of the vaccine either intradermally or subcutaneously. Inhibition of the late cutaneous reaction was considered as a surrogate of clinical efficacy and 3 nmol was determined as the best concentration for intradermally desensitization. Treatment was performed in patients with cat-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and in an environmental exposure chamber they were exposed to cat allergen before and after therapy. The clinical efficacy was observed after 18–22 weeks and 50–54 weeks after the start of the treatment and the highest dose of cat PAD (6 nmol 4 weeks apart, compared to 3 nmol 2 weeks apart) gave the greatest efficacy. The treatment effect was apparent on nasal and ocular symptoms and persisted 9 months later without any further retreatment (26). Other clinical studies should confirm these encouraging results.

T cell peptides containing major allergen epitopes have been generated from the primary structures of other mammalian allergens such as Can f 1 (39), Bos d 2 (40), and Equ c 1 (41) but the potential application of these molecules in allergic patients have not been investigated.

RECOMBINANT HYPOALLERGENIC DERIVATIVES

Hypoallergenic derivatives are characterized by a strongly reduced IgE reactivity. The IgE-binding epitopes of Fel d 1 have been modified through disruption of disulfide bonds and duplication of T cell epitopes. Three of the modified Fel d 1 derivatives displayed a strong reduction in allergenicity with 400–900 times lower IgE-binding capacity (hypoallergens) compared to wild-type Fel d 1 (28). The therapeutic capacity of the hypoallergen with the most reduced IgE reactivity was evaluated in a mouse model for cat allergy and by skin tests on cat-allergic patients. An induction of Fel d 1-specific IgG antibodies with capacity of blocking patients’ IgE to rFel d 1 and a reduction in airway responsiveness was noted. Furthermore, the hypoallergen showed a tendency of reduced SPT reactivity compared to rFel d in seven cat-allergic patients (42).

Other hypoallergenic mutants of rFel d 1 have been generated by the introduction of random mutated allergen sequences and the selection of derivatives with a maintained tertiary structure by phage display using IgE antibodies from cat-allergic patients. The mutants had a lower IgE-binding and T cell activation capacity and could induce strong IgG-anti Fel d 1 protective responses by mouse immunization experiments. Thus they should be good candidates for safe alternatives for SIT (29).

Furthermore, in search of a vaccine for mouse allergy a structure-guided single point mutation has been performed for Mus m 1, the major mouse allergen which is an urinary protein. This mutation induced a spatial rearrangement of aromatic side chains and a lower allergenic activity although the T cell reactivity was preserved (27).

PEPTIDE CARRIER FUSION PROTEINS

One strategy to improve SIT has been to couple allergens to the bacteriophage Qß-derived virus-like particles. In mice, one injection of Qß coupled to Fel d 1 induced a Fel d 1-specific IgG response, and reduced anaphylactic reactions after rFel d 1 challenge (30). However, the chemical coupling process might be difficult to standardize for vaccine production.

Another carrier protein, the Pre-S domain of hepatitis B virus has been evaluated more recently (31). The cat hypoallergen vaccine was produced by fusion of Pre-S of hepatitis B to two non-allergenic Fel d 1 derived peptides. This approach has shown to eliminate both IgE-mediated and T cell mediated side effects. The T cell help comes from a Fel d 1-unrelated carrier protein, the Pre-S domain of hepatitis B virus, which contains antigenic sites for both B and T cells (43). The recombinant fusion protein exhibited more than 1000-fold reduction in allergenic activity compared with rFel d 1 (31). After immunization of mice and rabbits the fusion protein induced Fel d 1-specific IgG antibodies, which inhibited IgE-binding of cat-allergic patients to Fel d 1. In addition, the T cell responses in immunized mice were specific for Pre-S and very low for Fel d 1. This vaccine has to be further evaluated in clinical studies to confirm its promising qualities.

CONJUGATION TO MOLECULES WITH IMMUNOMODULATORY FUNCTIONS

A chimeric human–cat fusion protein composed of a truncated human IgG Fc gamma 1 and Fel d 1 has been proposed for a new approach of SIT (16). This conjugate induced a dose dependent inhibition of Fel d 1 driven IgE histamine release from cat-allergic donors’ basophiles and from sensitized human cord-blood derived mast cells. The vaccine potential was also demonstrated in a mouse model for cat allergy (16, 44).

A new technology called modular antigen translocation (MAT) has been applied to Fel d 1 to enhance immunogenicity and safety of SIT. By attaching a truncated invariant chain peptide, and a transactivator of transcription peptide to allergens, they are converted into cytoplasmic proteins targeting the MHC class II pathway (17). MAT fusion of rFel d 1 has shown to enhance protective antibody and Th1 responses in mice, while reducing human basophil degranulation (17). A recent paper has described a phase I/IIa, randomized, placebo-controlled, and double-blind trial, using this construct by intra-lymphatic injections in cat dander allergic patients (20 patients were randomized) (32). The intra-lymphatic route has shown to reduce both the number of allergen injections as well as the allergen dose, improving both efficacy and safety of SIT (45). Three monthly injections with increasing doses of MAT-Fel d 1 elicited no adverse events and there was significant increase in allergen tolerance after nasal provocation. Regulatory T cell responses were stimulated and IL10 cytokine secretion and increased cat dander specific IgG4 production were observed. This clinical study represents the first immunotherapy trial with a recombinant cat allergen. It is also a major improvement over classical immunotherapy due to improved safety, low allergen doses, few injections, and a short treatment period. This promising vaccination approach has to be confirmed in larger patient studies and also by assessing efficacy on reduction of symptoms and medication use and long term follow-up.

1,25-Dihydrovitamin D3 has been shown to induce dendritic cells with tolerogenic properties, thus, increasing regulatory T cell responses (33). In an attempt to use this effect, VD3 was covalently coupled to rFel d 1 and tested in a mouse model for cat allergy (22). rFel d 1 VD3 was superior to rFel d 1 in reducing airway inflammation, and airway hyperresponsiveness, and in producing allergen-specific IgG blocking antibodies.

rFel d 1 has also been covalently coupled to carbohydrate-based particles (CBP) for targeting of dendritic cells and enhanced adjuvanticity in SIT (34). This approach was evaluated in a mouse model for cat allergy (20). CBP-rFel d 1 treated mice showed reduced features of allergic inflammation and increased allergen-specific IgM and IgG responses. In a prophylactic protocol it was also shown that CPB rFel d 1 prevents the induction of airway inflammation possibly through the induction of allergen-specific IgG and IgM and by a prolonged tissue exposure to rFel d 1 (34).

CONCLUSION

Better characterization of recombinant allergens from mammalian species has contributed to formulate new allergy vaccines to improve SIT for patients allergic to furry animals. The identification of the major allergens in allergen sources is essential for generating vaccines, which may replace the natural allergen extract (11, 46). This explains in part why a majority of the new furry animal allergy vaccines have been restricted to the major cat allergen Fel d 1. Further studies are needed to point out which allergen component/s are needed for treatment of furry animal allergy, taking in account the great variability of commercial extracts regarding their allergen contents. This is especially true for dog allergens (4) where the panel of allergens so far is incomplete. Several studies presented here explore new concepts for improving the safety of SIT, by using different approaches and various technologies. However, only a few of them have been investigated in clinical trials, which will be the gold standard for evaluation of safety and efficacy in allergic patients.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Supported by the Swedish Research Council, the Stockholm County Council, the Swedish Asthma and Allergy Association’s Research Foundation, the King Gustaf V 80th Birthday Foundation, the Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation, the Hesselman Foundation, the Konsul Th C Bergh Foundation, the Center for Inflammatory Diseases, the Swedish Cancer and Allergy Foundation and Karolinska Institutet.

REFERENCES

1. Jacobsen L, Niggeman B, Dreborg S, Ferdousi HA, Halken S, Koivikko A, et al. Specific immunotherapy has long-term preventive effect of seasonal and perennial asthma: 10 year follow-up on the PAT study. Allergy (2007) 62:943–8. doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.2007.01451.x

2. Wickman M, Asarnoj A, Tillander H, Andersson N, Bergström A, Kull I, et al. Childhood-to-adolescence evolution of IgE antibodies to pollens and plant foods in the BAMSE cohort. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2014) 133:580–2.e8. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2013.09.009

3. Hedlin G, Graff-Lonnevig V, Heilborn H, Lilja G, Norrlind K, Pegelow K, et al. Immunotherapy with cat- and dog-dander extracts. V. Effects of 3 years of treatment. J Allergy Clin Immunol (1991) 87:955–64. doi:10.1016/0091-6749(91)90417-M

4. Curin M, Reininger R, Swoboda I, Focke M, Valenta R, Spitzauer S. Skin prick test extracts for dog allergy diagnosis show considerable variations regarding the content of major and minor dog allergens. Int Arch Allergy Immunol (2011) 154:258–63. doi:10.1159/000321113

5. Nouri-Aria KT, Wachholz PA, Francis JN, Jacobson MR, Walker SM, Wilcock LK, et al. Grass pollen immunotherapy induces mucosal and peripheral IL-10 responses and blocking IgG activity. J Immunol (2004) 172:3252–9.

6. Pipet A, Botturi K, Pinot D, Vervloet D, Magnan A. Allergen-specific immunotherapy in allergic rhinitis and asthma. Mechanisms and proof of efficacy. Respir Med (2009) 103:800–12. doi:10.1016/j.rmed.2009.01.008

7. Kiel MA, Röder E, van Wijk RG, Al MJ, Hop WC, Rutten-van Mölken MP. Real-life compliance and persistence among users of subcutaneous and sublingual allergen immunotherapy. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2013) 132:353–60. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2013.03.013

8. Burks AW, Calderon MA, Casale T, Cox L, Demoly P, Jutel M, et al. Update on allergy immunotherapy: American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology/European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology/PRACTALL consensus report. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2013) 131:1288.e–96.e. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2013.01.049

9. Valenta R, Ferreira F, Focke-Tejkl M, Linhart B, Nieberberger V, Swoboda I, et al. From allergen genes to allergy vaccines. Annu Rev Immunol (2010) 28:211–41. doi:10.1146/annurev-immunol-030409-101218

10. Thomas WR. The advent of recombinant allergens and allergen cloning. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2011) 127:855–9. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2010.12.1084

11. Valenta R, Campana R, Marth K, van Hage M. Allergen-specific immunotherapy: from therapeutic vaccines to prophylactic approaches. J Intern Med (2012) 272:144–57. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2796.2012.02556.x

12. Pauli G, Larsen TH, Rak SZ, Horak F, Pastorello E, Valenta R, et al. Efficacy of recombinant birch pollen vaccine for the treatment of birch-allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2008) 122:951–60. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2008.09.017

13. Focke-Tejkl M, Valenta R. Safety of engineered allergen-specific immunotherapy vaccines. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol (2012) 12:556–63. doi:10.1097/ACI.0b013e328357ca53

14. Focke M, Swoboda I, Marth K, Valenta R. Developments in allergen-specific immunotherapy: from allergen extracts to allergy vaccines bypassing allergen-specific immunoglobulin E and T cell reactivity. Clin Exp Allergy (2010) 40(3):385–97. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2222.2009.03443.x

15. Marth K, Breyer I, Focke-Tejkl M, Blatt K, Shamji MH, Layhadi J, et al. A nonallergenic birch pollen allergy vaccine consisting of hepatitis PreS-fused Bet v 1 peptides focuses blocking IgG toward IgE epitopes and shifts immune responses to a tolerogenic and Th1 phenotype. J Immunol (2013) 190:3068–78. doi:10.4049/jimmunol.1202441

16. Zhu D, Kepley CL, Zhang K, Terada T, Yamada T, Saxon A. A chimeric human-cat fusion protein blocks cat-induced allergy. Nat Med (2005) 11:446–9. doi:10.1038/nm1219

17. Martinez-Gomez JM, Johansen P, Rose H, Steiner M, Senti G, Rhyner C, et al. Targeting the MHC class II pathway of antigen presentation enhances immunogenicity and safety of allergen immunotherapy. Allergy (2009) 64:172–8. doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.2008.01812.x

18. Santeliz JV, Van Nest G, Traquina P, Larsen E, Wills-Karp M. Amb a 1-linked CpG oligo-deoxynucleotides reverse established airway hyperresponsiveness in a murine model of asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2002) 109:455–62. doi:10.1067/mai.2002.122156

19. Tulic MK, Fiset PO, Christodoulopoulos P, Vaillancourt P, Desrosiers M, Lavigne F, et al. Amb a 1-immunostimulatory oligodeoxynucleotide conjugate immunotherapy decreases the nasal inflammatory response. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2004) 113:235–41. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2003.11.001

20. Neimert-Andersson T, Thunberg S, Swendin L, Wiedermann U, Jacobsson-Ekman G, Dahlen SE, et al. Carbohydrate-based particles reduce allergic inflammation in a mouse model for cat allergy. Allergy (2008) 53:518–26. doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.2008.01644.x

21. Taher YA, van Esch BC, Hofman GA, Henricks PA, van Oosterhout A. 1alpha,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 potentiates the beneficial effects of allergen immunotherapy in a mouse model of allergic asthma: role for IL-10 and TGF-ß. J Immunol (2008) 180:5211–21.

22. Grundström J, Neimert-Andersson T, Kemi C, Nilsson OB, Saarne T, Andersson M, et al. Covalent coupling of vitamin D3 to the major cat allergen Fel d 1 improves the effects of allergen-specific immunotherapy in a mouse model for cat allergy. Int Arch Allergy Immunol (2012) 157:136–46. doi:10.1159/000327546

23. Johansen P, von Moos S, Mohanan D, Kündig TM, Senti G. New routes for allergen immunotherapy. Hum Vaccin Immunother (2012) 8:1525–33. doi:10.4161/hv.21948

24. Oldfield WL, Larché M, Kay AB. Effect of T-cell peptides derived from Fel d 1 on allergic reactions and cytokine production in patients sensitive to cats: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet (2002) 360:47–53. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(02)09332-7

25. Worm M, Lee HH, Kleine-Tebbe J, Hafner RP, Laidler P, Healey D, et al. Development and preliminary clinical evaluation of a peptide immunotherapy vaccine for cat allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2011) 127:89–97. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2010.11.029

26. Patel D, Couroux P, Hickey P, Salapatek AM, Laidler P, Larché M, et al. Fel d 1-derived peptide antigen desensitization shows a persistent treatment effect 1 year after the start of dosing: a randomized, placebo-controlled study. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2013) 131:103–9. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2012.07.028

27. Ferrari E, Breda D, Longhi R, Vangelista L, Nakaie CR, Elviri L, et al. In search of a vaccine for mouse allergy: significant reduction of Mus m 1 allergenicity by structure-guided single-point mutations. Int Arch Allergy Immunol (2012) 157:226–37. doi:10.1159/000327551

28. Saarne T, Kaiser L, Grönlund H, Rasool O, Gafvelin G, van Hage-Hamsten M. Rational design of hypoallergens applied to the major cat allergen Fel d 1. Clin Exp Allergy (2005) 35:657–63. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2222.2005.02234.x

29. Nilsson OB, Adedoyin J, Rhyner C, Neimert-Andersson T, Grundström J, Berndt KD, et al. In vitro evolution of allergy vaccine candidates, with maintained structure, but reduced B cell and T cell activation capacity. PLoS One (2011) 6:e24558. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0024558

30. Schmitz N, Dietmeier K, Bauer M, Maudrich M, Utzinger S, Muntwiler S, et al. Displaying Fel d 1 on virus-like particles prevents reactogenicity despite greatly enhanced immunogenicity: a novel therapy for cat allergy. J Exp Med (2009) 206:1941–55. doi:10.1084/jem.20090199

31. Niespodziana K, Focke-Tejkl M, Linhart B, Civaj V, Blatt K, Valent PM, et al. A hypoallergenic cat vaccine based on Fel d 1-derived peptides fused to hepatitis B PreS. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2011) 127:1562–70. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2011.02.004

32. Senti G, Crameri R, Kuster D, Johansen P, Martinez-Gomez JM, Graf N, et al. Intralymphatic immunotherapy for cat allergy induces tolerance after only 3 injections. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2012) 129:1290–6. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2012.02.026

33. Jeffery LE, Burke F, Mura M, Zheng Y, Qureshi OS, Hewison M, et al. 1,25-Dihydroxyvitamin D3 an IL-2 combine to inhibit T cell production of inflammatory cytokines and promote development of regulatory T cells expressing CTLA-4 and FoxP3. J Immunol (2009) 183:5458–67. doi:10.4049/jimmunol.0803217

34. Thunberg S, Neimert-Andersson T, Cheng Q, Wermeling F, Bergström U, Swedin L, et al. Prolonged antigen-exposure with carbohydrate particle based vaccination prevents allergic immune responses in sensitized mice. Allergy (2009) 64:919–26. doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.2008.01905.x

35. Moldaver D, Larché M. Immunotherapy with peptides. Allergy (2011) 66:784–91. doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.2011.02610.x

36. Briner TJ, Kuo MC, Keating KM, Rogers BL, Greenstein JL. Peripheral T-cell tolerance induced in naïve and primed mice by subcutaneous injection of peptides from the major cat allergen Fel d 1. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A (1993) 90:7608–12. doi:10.1073/pnas.90.16.7608

37. Norman PS, Ohman JL, Long AA, Creticos PS, Gefter MA, Shaked Z, et al. Treatment of cat allergy with T-cell reactive peptides. Am J Respir Crit Care Med (1996) 154:1623–8. doi:10.1164/ajrccm.154.6.8970345

38. Maguire P, Nicodemus C, Robinson D, Aaronson D, Umetsu DT. The safety and efficacy of ALLERVAX CAT in cat allergic patients. Clin Immunol (1999) 93:222–31. doi:10.1006/clim.1999.4795

39. Immonen A, Farci S, Taivainen A, Partanen J, Pouvelle-Moratille S, Närvänen A, et al. T cell epitope-containing peptides of the major dog allergen Can f 1 as candidates for allergen immunotherapy. J Immunol (2005) 15(175):3614–20.

40. Kinnunen T, Jutila K, Kwok WW, Rytkönen-Nissinen M, Immonen A, Saarelainen S, et al. Potential of an altered peptide ligand of lipocalin allergen Bos d 2 for peptide immunotherapy. J Allergy Clin Immunol (2007) 119:965–72. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2007.01.011

41. Immonen A, Kinnunen T, Sirven P, Taivainen A, Houitte D, Peräsaari J, et al. The major horse allergen Equ c 1 contains one immunodominant region for T cell epitopes. Clin Exp Allergy (2007) 37:939–47. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2222.2007.02722.x

42. Saarne T, Neimert-Andersson T, Grönlund H, Jutel M, Gafvelin G, van Hage M. Treatment with a Fel d 1 hypoallergen reduces allergic responses in a mouse model for cat allergy. Allergy (2011) 66:255–63. doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.2010.02468.x

43. Milich DR. T- and B-cell recognition of hepatitis B viral antigens. Immunol Today (1988) 9:380–6. doi:10.1016/0167-5699(88)91239-X

44. Terada T, Zhang K, Belperio J, Londhe V, Saxon A. A chimeric human-cat Fcgamma-Fel d1 fusion protein inhibits systemic, pulmonary, and cutaneous allergic reactivity to intratracheal challenge in mice sensitized to Fel d1, the major cat allergen. Clin Immunol (2006) 120:45–56. doi:10.1016/j.clim.2005.12.010

45. Martínez-Gómez JM, Johansen P, Erdmann I, Senti G, Crameri R, Kündig TM. Intralymphatic injections as a new administration route for allergen-specific immunotherapy. Int Arch Allergy Immunol (2009) 150(1):59–65. doi:10.1159/000210381

46. Nilsson OB, van Hage M, Gronlund H. Mammalian-derived respiratory allergens – implications for diagnosis and therapy of individuals allergic to furry animals. Methods (2014) 66:86–95. doi:10.1016/j.ymeth.2013.09.002

Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Received: 11 November 2013; accepted: 14 February 2014; published online: 14 March 2014.

Citation: van Hage M and Pauli G (2014) New vaccines for mammalian allergy using molecular approaches. Front. Immunol. 5:81. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2014.00081

This article was submitted to Immunotherapies and Vaccines, a section of the journal Frontiers in Immunology.

Copyright © 2014 van Hage and Pauli. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.