The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
Volume 120, Issue 3 , Pages 647-653, September 2007

Lupine allergy: Not simply cross-reactivity with peanut or soy

  • Kim A.B.M. Peeters, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Dermatology/Allergology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests: Kim A. B. M. Peeters, MD, Department of Dermatology/Allergology (G02.124), University Medical Center Utrecht, PO Box 85.500, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands.
  • ,
  • Julie A. Nordlee, MS

      Affiliations

    • Food Allergy Research and Resource Program, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Neb
  • ,
  • André H. Penninks, PhD

      Affiliations

    • TNO Quality of Life, Zeist, The Netherlands
  • ,
  • Lingyun Chen, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Food Allergy Research and Resource Program, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Neb
  • ,
  • Richard E. Goodman, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Food Allergy Research and Resource Program, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Neb
  • ,
  • Carla A.F.M. Bruijnzeel-Koomen, MD, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Dermatology/Allergology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
  • ,
  • Sue L. Hefle, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Food Allergy Research and Resource Program, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Neb
    • Deceased.
  • ,
  • Steve L. Taylor, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Food Allergy Research and Resource Program, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Neb
  • ,
  • André C. Knulst, MD, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Dermatology/Allergology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands

Received 13 August 2006; received in revised form 26 April 2007; accepted 17 May 2007. published online 16 July 2007.

Background

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.

Objectives

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusion

Lupine allergy can occur either separately or together with peanut allergy, as demonstrated by 3 patients who are cosensitized to peanut and lupine.

Clinical implications

Lupine flour is allergenic and potentially cross-reactive with peanut allergen, thus posing some risk if used as a replacement for soy flour.

Key words: Lupine allergy, cross-reactivity, legumes, allergens, IgE immunoblotting, amino acid sequencing, skin prick tests, double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge, eliciting dose, peanut

Abbreviations used: DBPCFC, Double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge, ED, Eliciting dose, pI, Isoelectric point, SPT, Skin prick test

 

 This study was supported by University Medical Center Utrecht. This research was conducted with a contribution of the University of Nebraska Agricultural Research Division, supported in part by funds provided through United States Department of Agriculture. Additional support was provided by the Food Allergy Research and Resource Program, the University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska. Mention of a trade name, proprietary products, or company name is for presentation clarity and does not imply endorsement by the University of Nebraska.

 Disclosure of potential conflict of interest: R. E. Goodman is employed by the Department of Food Science and Technology at the University of Nebraska. S. L. Taylor has consultant arrangements with Weston Company (Australia) on safety of lupine-derived food ingredients, has patent licensing arrangements for ELISAs with Neogen Corporation, receives grants/research support from the US Department of Agriculture and the food industry, and is employed by the University of Nebraska. The rest of the authors have declared that they have no conflict of interest.

PII: S0091-6749(07)01028-7

doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2007.05.032

The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
Volume 120, Issue 3 , Pages 647-653, September 2007