Background: Date fruits are allergenic and standardized extracts are required for diagnosis and therapy of this allergy. Since there are several cultivars of dates, this study was carried out to assess the allergenicity of different cultivars in order to select suitable source material for standardization. Methods: The protein profiles of 18 of the most commonly sold varieties were compared by SDS-PAGE and their relative allergenicity assessed by SPT and IgE-based ELISA and immunoblotting. Thirty-two date fruit-sensitive patients were skin tested with a pooled extract from all the cultivars. Six of the patients with high SPT results (≥3+) who volunteered were further tested with the 18 cultivars and their sera used in ELISA and immunoblotting. Results: Six of the cultivars gave high SPT-positive reactions in ≥4 of patients. Five of these high SPT-reactive cultivars gave high IgE ELISA scores (≥0.58) but individual cultivars varied in their number of IgE immunoblot bands. Cultivar-specific IgE-binding patterns indicated that only certain cultivars bound IgE at molecular weights of ≤14.3 and 27–33 kDa whilst all cultivars bound to a 54–58 kDa doublet. Cultivars that bind to the ≤14.3 and 27–33 kDa bands appeared to form the majority of the high SPT-reactive cultivars. When individual sera of 24 of the 32 SPT-positive patients were used in IgE immunoblots with the pooled cultivar extract, all sera bound IgE at ≤14.3 and 27–33 kDa and about 60% of sera bound to a 54–58 kDa doublet bands. Conclusions: These results indicate that allergenicity of date fruits is a cultivar-specific phenomenon. Sixty to 100% of sera from date fruit-allergic patients bind IgE to three major allergens of ≤14.3, 27–33 and 54–58 kDa. Five of the cultivars that evoke high SPT reactions, high IgE ELISA scores and bind IgE to the major allergens, can be selected for the preparation of ‘in-house’ allergen extracts and for allergen standardization.

1.
Kwaasi AAA, Harfi HA, Parhar RS, Al-Sedairy ST, Collison KS, Panzani RC, Al-Mohanna FA: Allergy to date fruits: Characterisation of antigens and allergens of fruits of the date palm (Phoenix dactylifera L.) Allergy 1999;54:1270–1277.
2.
Gonzalo MA, Moneo I, Ventas P, Polo F, Garcia JM: Immediate hypersensitivity reaction to date. Allergy 1997;52:598–599.
3.
Kwaasi AA, Parhar RS, Tipirneni P, Harfi HA, Al-Sedairy ST: Cultivar-specific epitopes in date palm (Phoenix dactylifera L.) pollenosis. Differential antigenic and allergenic properties of pollen from ten cultivars. Int Arch Allergy Immunol 1994;104:281–290.
4.
Maasch HJ, Wihl JA, Schultze-Werninghaus G, Geissler W, Wahl R: A manufacturer’s criteria for in-house reference preparations for RAST inhibition. Ann Allergy 1987;59:29–33.
5.
Voitenko V, Poulsen LK, Nielsen L, Norgaard A, Bindslev-Jensen C, Stahl Skov P: Allergenic properties of kiwi fruit extract: Cross-reactivity between kiwi fruit and birch pollen allergens. Allergy 1997;52:136–143.
6.
Lowry OH, Rosebrough NJ, Farr AL, Randall RJ: Protein measurement with the Folin phenol reagent. J Biol Chem 1951;193:265–275.
7.
Trevelyan WE, Harrison JS: A micromethod for determination of carbohydrate. Biochem J 1952;50:298–306.
8.
Harboe N, Inglid A: Immunisation, isolation of immunoglobulin, estimation of antibody titre. Scand J Immunol 1973;2(Suppl 1):161–169.
9.
Voller A, Bidwell DE, Bartlett A: Enzyme immunoassays in diagnostic medicine. Bull World Health Org 1976;53:55–65.
10.
Kwaasi AA, Parhar RS, Tipirneni P, Harfi H, Al-Sedairy ST: Major allergens of date palm (Phoenix dactylifera L.) pollen. Identification of IgE-binding components by ELISA and immunoblot analysis. Allergy 1993;48:511–518.
11.
Waisel Y, Geller-Bernstein C, Kenyan N, Arad G: Antigenicity of the pollen proteins of various cultivars of Olea europea. Allergy 1996;51:819–825.
12.
Waisel Y, Kenyan N, Gil T, Tatar D, Bezerano A, Goldberg A, Geller-Bernstein C, Dolev Z, Tamir R, Levy I, et al: Allergic responses to date palm and pecan pollen. Harefua 1994;126:305–310, 368.
13.
Kosman E, Eshel A, Kenyan N, Waisel Y: Clustering of allergenic pollen on the basis of skin responses of atopic patients by matrix analysis. Allergy 1994;49:502–507.
14.
Kosman E, Eshel A, Waisel Y: The ‘travelling salesman problem’: A new approach for identification of differences among pollen allergens. Int Arch Allergy Immunol 1997;112:371–377.
15.
Anderson MC, Baer H: In vitro methods for standardisation of allergenic extracts. Clin Rev Allergy 1986;4:363–370.
16.
WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardisation: Guidelines for the preparation and establishment of reference materials and reference reagents for biological substances. WHO Tech Rep Ser No 626. Geneva, WHO, 1978.
17.
Dreborg S: Precision of biological standardization of allergenic preparations. Allergy 1992;47:291–294.
18.
Dreborg S, Frew A: Position paper: Allergen standardization and skin tests. Allergy Suppl 1992;49.
19.
Norman PS: WHO-USIS International Standards: Advantages of these extracts. Frankfurt am Main, Paul Ehrlich Institut, Bundesamt für Sera und Impfstoffe, 1994, vol. 87, pp 59–64.
20.
Backman A, Belin L, Dreborg S, HalVorsen R, Malling H-J, Weeke B: Standardization of allergenic preparations. Comments with reference to the second edition of the common Nordic guidelines for registration of allergenic preparations. Allergy 1994;46:81–84.
21.
Nordic Council on Medicines: Registration of allergenic preparations. Nordic guidelines, ed 2. NLN Publ, 1998, No .23, pp 1–34.
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.