Component-resolved diagnosis from latex allergy by microarray
Article first published online: 2 NOV 2009
© 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Clinical & Experimental Allergy
Volume 40, Issue 2, pages 348–358, February 2010
How to Cite
Ebo, D. G., Hagendorens, M. M., De Knop, K. J., Verweij, M. M., Bridts, C. H., De Clerck, L. S. and Stevens, W. J. (2010), Component-resolved diagnosis from latex allergy by microarray. Clinical & Experimental Allergy, 40: 348–358. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2222.2009.03370.x
- Issue published online: 11 JAN 2010
- Article first published online: 2 NOV 2009
- Submitted 5 May 2009; revised 7 August 2009; accepted 10 August 2009
- basophil activation test;
- component resolved diagnosis;
- cross-reactive carbohydrate determinants (CCD);
Background A positive specific IgE (sIgE) result for latex does not always mirror the clinical situation and is frequently found in individuals without overt latex allergy.
Objective We sought to investigate the potential of component-resolved diagnosis (CRD) of latex allergy by microarray and to assess whether the technique allows discriminating genuine allergy from asymptomatic sensitization.
Methods Twenty-six healthy controls without a history of latex allergy with a negative latex sIgE and skin test, 22 latex-allergic patients with a compelling history of latex allergy with a positive latex sIgE and prick test and 20 latex-sensitized individuals with a frequent asymptomatic exposure to natural rubber latex-containing devices with a negative latex skin test but a positive sIgE were also included. CRD was performed with the ImmunoCAP ISAC microarray and traditional singleplexed ImmunoCAP.
Results In all patients, the diagnosis of latex allergy could be established by the combination of recombinant latex components present on the microarray (Hev b 1, Hev b 3, Hev b 5 and Hev b 6.02). Over three-quarters of our patients were sensitized for Hev b 5 and/or Hev b 6.02. Some patients also displayed reactivity for Hev b 1 and/or Hev b 3. In contrast, none of the individuals sensitized to natural rubber latex or control individuals demonstrated IgE reactivity for rHev b 1, rHev b 3, rHev b 5 or rHev b 6.02. Three-quarters of the patients sensitized to latex displayed a positive microarray result for recombinant latex profilin (rHev b 8). In contrast to the results obtained by traditional ImmunoCAP for bromelain, almost no sensitization for cross-reactive carbohydrates was demonstrated by bromelain spotted on the microarray. CRD by traditional singleplexed ImmunoCAP showed highly comparable results.
Conclusion CRD by microarray is a reliable tool for diagnosing latex allergy. In addition, the technique allows discrimination between genuine allergy and sensitization. CRD by microarray can improve the diagnosis of IgE-mediated latex allergy by discriminating between genuine allergy and sensitization. CRD by microarray is a reliable tool to diagnose latex allergy. In addition, the technique allows discrimination between a genuine allergy and simple sensitization.
Cite this as: D. G. Ebo, M. M. Hagendorens, K. J. De Knop, M. M. Verweij, C. H. Bridts, L. S. De Clerck and W. J. Stevens, Clinical & Experimental Allergy, 2010 (40) 348– 358.