Peeters Kim A B M, Nordlee Julie A, Penninks André H, Chen Lingyun, Goodman Richard E, Bruijnzeel-Koomen Carla A F M, Hefle Sue L, Taylor Steve L, Knulst André C
Department of Dermatology/Allergology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2007 Sep;120(3):647-53. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2007.05.032. Epub 2007 Jul 16.
Reports of lupine allergy are increasing as its use in food products increases. Lupine allergy might be the consequence of cross-reactivity after sensitization to peanut or other legumes or de novo sensitization. Lupine allergens have not been completely characterized.
We sought to identify allergens associated with lupine allergy, evaluate potential cross-reactivity with peanut, and determine eliciting doses (EDs) for lupine allergy by using double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges.
Six patients with a history of allergic reactions to lupine flour were evaluated by using skin prick tests, CAP tests, and double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges. Three of these patients were also allergic to peanut. Lupine allergens were characterized by means of IgE immunoblotting and peptide sequencing.
In all 6 patients the ED for lupine flour was 3 mg or less for subjective symptoms and 300 mg or more for objective symptoms. The low ED and moderate-to-severe historical symptoms indicate significant allergenicity of lupine flour. Two patients allergic to lupine but not to peanut displayed IgE binding predominantly to approximately 66-kd proteins and weak binding to 14- and 24-kd proteins, whereas patients with peanut allergy and lupine allergy showed weak binding to lupine proteins of about 14 to 21 or 66 kd. Inhibition of binding was primarily species specific.
Lupine allergy can occur either separately or together with peanut allergy, as demonstrated by 3 patients who are cosensitized to peanut and lupine.
Lupine flour is allergenic and potentially cross-reactive with peanut allergen, thus posing some risk if used as a replacement for soy flour.
随着羽扇豆在食品中的使用增加，羽扇豆过敏的报告也在增多。羽扇豆过敏可能是对花生或其他豆类致敏后的交叉反应结果，也可能是从头致敏的结果。羽扇豆过敏原尚未完全明确。
我们试图鉴定与羽扇豆过敏相关的过敏原，评估与花生的潜在交叉反应，并通过双盲、安慰剂对照食物激发试验确定羽扇豆过敏的激发剂量（ED）。
对6例有羽扇豆面粉过敏反应史的患者进行皮肤点刺试验、CAP试验和双盲、安慰剂对照食物激发试验评估。其中3例患者也对花生过敏。通过IgE免疫印迹和肽测序对羽扇豆过敏原进行鉴定。
所有6例患者中，羽扇豆面粉的主观症状ED为3mg或更低，客观症状ED为300mg或更高。低ED和中度至重度既往症状表明羽扇豆面粉具有显著的致敏性。2例对羽扇豆过敏但对花生不过敏的患者，其IgE主要与约66kd的蛋白结合，与14kd和24kd的蛋白结合较弱，而花生过敏和羽扇豆过敏的患者对约14至21kd或66kd的羽扇豆蛋白结合较弱。结合抑制主要具有种属特异性。
如3例对花生和羽扇豆共同致敏的患者所示，羽扇豆过敏可单独发生，也可与花生过敏同时发生。
羽扇豆面粉具有致敏性，且可能与花生过敏原发生交叉反应，因此如果用作大豆粉的替代品会带来一些风险。
