Background: Clinical and immunological characteristics of food allergies vary depending on geographic regions. Little is known about peanut allergy in China. The aim of this study was to investigate the peanut sensitization profile in China. Methods: Thirty-eight participants with immunoglobulin E (IgE)-positive responses to peanuts (peanut-sensitized) were included in our study, and clinical characteristics were evaluated. Total and specific IgE reactivity against peanuts, other plant-derived foods, pollens, and related allergen components were determined. Results: Eighteen patients were symptomatic when exposed to peanuts. The majority of them presented with systemic reactions. More than half of the peanut-sensitized subjects also suffered from mugwort pollinosis and peach allergy. In patients with both peanut and peach allergies, reactions to peanuts were the same as or severer than those to peaches. Positivity rates of IgE response to rAra h 1-3, 8, and 9 in the peanut allergy group were 5.6, 11.1, 5.6, 22.2, and 83.3%, respectively. 66.7% (12/18) of the peanut-allergic patients were monosensitized to rAra h 9. Anti-nArt v 3 [mugwort nonspecific lipid transfer protein (nsLTP)] IgE positivity in the peanut allergy group was significantly higher than that in the asymptomatic peanut-sensitized group. In Ara h 9 (peanut nsLTP)-sensitized patients with mugwort pollinosis, anti-nArt v 3 IgE levels were remarkably higher than anti-rAra h 9 (peanut nsLTP) IgE levels as well as anti-Pru p 3 (peach nsLTP) IgE levels. Conclusions: Ara h 9 was the major allergen of peanut, and Ara h 9 monosensitization was the most common peanut sensitization pattern in our population. Furthermore, there was a strong correlation between peanut sensitization and mugwort pollinosis, as well as peach allergy, in our country.

1.
Bock SA, Munoz-Furlong A, Sampson HA: Further fatalities caused by anaphylactic reactions to food, 2001-2006. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2007;119:1016-1018.
2.
Moneret-Vautrin DA, Morisset M, Flabbee J, Beaudouin E, Kanny G: Epidemiology of life-threatening and lethal anaphylaxis: a review. Allergy 2005;60:443-451.
3.
Ciprandi G, Pistorio A, Silvestri M, Rossi GA, Tosca MA: Peanut anaphylaxis: the usefulness of molecular-based allergy diagnostics. Allergy 2015;70:129-130.
4.
Vereda A, van Hage M, Ahlstedt S, Ibanez MD, Cuesta-Herranz J, van Odijk J, et al: Peanut allergy: clinical and immunologic differences among patients from 3 different geographic regions. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2011;127:603-607.
5.
Javaloyes G, Goikoetxea MJ, Garcia NI, Aranda A, Sanz ML, Blanca M, et al: Pru p 3 acts as a strong sensitizer for peanut allergy in Spain. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2012;130:1432-1434.
6.
Andersen MB, Hall S, Dragsted LO: Identification of European allergy patterns to the allergen families PR-10, LTP, and profilin from Rosaceae fruits. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol 2011;41:4-19.
7.
Ackerbauer D, Bublin M, Radauer C, Varga EM, Hafner C, Ebner C, et al: Component-resolved IgE profiles in Austrian patients with a convincing history of peanut allergy. Int Arch Allergy Immunol 2015;166:13-24.
8.
Shek LP, Cabrera-Morales EA, Soh SE, Gerez I, Ng PZ, Yi FC, et al: A population-based questionnaire survey on the prevalence of peanut, tree nut, and shellfish allergy in 2 Asian populations. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2010;126:324-331.
9.
Ebisawa M, Moverare R, Sato S, Maruyama N, Borres MP, Komata T: Measurement of Ara h 1-, 2-, and 3-specific IgE antibodies is useful in diagnosis of peanut allergy in Japanese children. Pediatr Allergy Immunol 2012;23:573-581.
10.
Hong X, Caruso D, Kumar R, Liu R, Liu X, Wang G, et al: IgE, but not IgG4, antibodies to Ara h 2 distinguish peanut allergy from asymptomatic peanut sensitization. Allergy 2012;67:1538-1546.
11.
Dang TD, Tang M, Choo S, Licciardi PV, Koplin JJ, Martin PE, et al: Increasing the accuracy of peanut allergy diagnosis by using Ara h 2. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2012;129:1056-1063.
12.
Nicolaou N, Poorafshar M, Murray C, Simpson A, Winell H, Kerry G, et al: Allergy or tolerance in children sensitized to peanut: prevalence and differentiation using component-resolved diagnostics. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2010;125:191-197.
13.
Lin YT, Wu CT, Cheng JH, Huang JL, Yeh KW: Patterns of sensitization to peanut allergen components in Taiwanese Preschool children. J Microbiol Immunol Infect 2012;45:90-95.
14.
Suratannon N, Ngamphaiboon J, Wongpiyabovorn J, Puripokai P, Chatchatee P: Component-resolved diagnostics for the evaluation of peanut allergy in a low-prevalence area. Pediatr Allergy Immunol 2013;24:665-670.
15.
Codreanu F, Collignon O, Roitel O, Thouvenot B, Sauvage C, Vilain AC, et al: A novel immunoassay using recombinant allergens simplifies peanut allergy diagnosis. Int Arch Allergy Immunol 2011;154:216-226.
16.
Zuidmeer L: Peanut allergy - a tough nut to crack. Int Arch Allergy Immunol 2011;154:181-182.
17.
Hill DJ, Hosking CS, Zhie CY, Leung R, Baratwidjaja K, Iikura Y, et al: The frequency of food allergy in Australia and Asia. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol 1997;4:101-110.
18.
Beyer K, Morrow E, Li XM, Bardina L, Bannon GA, Burks AW, et al: Effects of cooking methods on peanut allergenicity. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2001;107:1077-1081.
19.
Kopper RA, Odum NJ, Sen M, Helm RM, Stanley JS, Burks AW: Peanut protein allergens: the effect of roasting on solubility and allergenicity. Int Arch Allergy Immunol 2005;136:16-22.
20.
Vissers YM, Iwan M, Adel-Patient K, Stahl SP, Rigby NM, Johnson PE, et al: Effect of roasting on the allergenicity of major peanut allergens Ara h 1 and Ara h 2/6: the necessity of degranulation assays. Clin Exp Allergy 2011;41:1631-1642.
21.
Asero R, Mistrello G, Roncarolo D, Amato S, Falagiani P: Analysis of the heat stability of lipid transfer protein from apple. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2003;112:1009-1011.
22.
Scheurer S, Lauer I, Foetisch K, San MMM, Retzek M, Hartz C, et al: Strong allergenicity of Pru av 3, the lipid transfer protein from cherry, is related to high stability against thermal processing and digestion. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2004;114:900-907.
23.
Asero R, Mistrello G, Roncarolo D, Amato S, Caldironi G, Barocci F, et al: Immunological cross-reactivity between lipid transfer proteins from botanically unrelated plant-derived foods: a clinical study. Allergy 2002;57:900-906.
24.
Moverare R, Ahlstedt S, Bengtsson U, Borres MP, van Hage M, Poorafshar M, et al: Evaluation of IgE antibodies to recombinant peanut allergens in patients with reported reactions to peanut. Int Arch Allergy Immunol 2011;156:282-290.
25.
Asarnoj A, Glaumann S, Elfstrom L, Lilja G, Lidholm J, Nilsson C, et al: Anaphylaxis to peanut in a patient predominantly sensitized to Ara h 6. Int Arch Allergy Immunol 2012;159:209-212.
26.
Scala E, Till SJ, Asero R, Abeni D, Guerra EC, Pirrotta L, et al: Lipid transfer protein sensitization: reactivity profiles and clinical risk assessment in an Italian cohort. Allergy 2015;70:933-943.
27.
Ye ST, Zhang JT, Gu RJ: Investigation of Aeroborne Allergenic Pollens in Different Regions of China, ed 1. Beijing, Peking Publishing House, 1991.
28.
Ma S, Yin J, Jiang N: Component-resolved diagnosis of peach allergy and its relationship with prevalent allergenic pollens in China. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2013;132:764-767.
29.
Gao ZS, Yang ZW, Wu SD, Wang HY, Liu ML, Mao WL, et al: Peach allergy in China: a dominant role for mugwort pollen lipid transfer protein as a primary sensitizer. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2013;131:224-226.
30.
Asero R, Mistrello G, Roncarolo D, de Vries SC, Gautier MF, Ciurana CL, et al: Lipid transfer protein: a pan-allergen in plant-derived foods that is highly resistant to pepsin digestion. Int Arch Allergy Immunol 2001;124:67-69.
31.
Asero R, Mistrello G, Roncarolo D, Amato S, Caldironi G, Barocci F, et al: Immunological cross-reactivity between lipid transfer proteins from botanically unrelated plant-derived foods: a clinical study. Allergy 2002;57:900-906.
32.
Asero R, Mistrello G, Roncarolo D, Amato S: Relationship between peach lipid transfer protein specific IgE levels and hypersensitivity to non-Rosaceae vegetable foods in patients allergic to lipid transfer protein. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2004;92:268-272.
33.
Lauer I, Dueringer N, Pokoj S, Rehm S, Zoccatelli G, Reese G, et al: The non-specific lipid transfer protein, Ara h 9, is an important allergen in peanut. Clin Exp Allergy 2009;39:1427-1437.
34.
Mehl A, Verstege A, Staden U, Kulig M, Nocon M, Beyer K, et al: Utility of the ratio of food-specific IgE/total IgE in predicting symptomatic food allergy in children. Allergy 2005;60:1034-1039.
35.
Wang J, Lin J, Bardina L, Goldis M, Nowak-Wegrzyn A, Shreffler WG, et al: Correlation of IgE/IgG4 milk epitopes and affinity of milk-specific IgE antibodies with different phenotypes of clinical milk allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2010;125:695-702, 701-702.
36.
Lopez-Torrejon G, Diaz-Perales A, Rodriguez J, Sanchez-Monge R, Crespo JF, Salcedo G, et al: An experimental and modeling-based approach to locate IgE epitopes of plant profilin allergens. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2007;119:1481-1488.
37.
Glaspole IN, de Leon MP, Prickett SR, O'Hehir RE, Rolland JM: Clinical allergy to hazelnut and peanut: identification of T cell cross-reactive allergens. Int Arch Allergy Immunol 2011;155:345-354.
38.
Kulis M, Pons L, Burks AW: In vivo and T cell cross-reactivity between walnut, cashew and peanut. Int Arch Allergy Immunol 2009;148:109-117.
39.
Rosenfeld L, Shreffler W, Bardina L, Niggemann B, Wahn U, Sampson HA, et al: Walnut allergy in peanut-allergic patients: significance of sequential epitopes of walnut homologous to linear epitopes of Ara h 1, 2 and 3 in relation to clinical reactivity. Int Arch Allergy Immunol 2012;157:238-245.
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.