Kitty Verhoeckx

Food processing and allergenicity

Food processing can have many beneficial effects. However, processing may also alter the allergenic properties of food proteins. A wide variety of processing methods is available and their use depends largely on the food to be processed. In this review the impact of processing (heat and non-heat treatment) on the allergenic potential of proteins, and on the antigenic (IgG-binding) and allergenic (IgE-binding) properties of proteins has been considered. A variety of allergenic foods (peanuts, tree nuts, cows milk, hens eggs, soy, wheat and mustard) have been reviewed. The overall conclusion drawn is that processing does not completely abolish the allergenic potential of allergens. Currently, only fermentation and hydrolysis may have potential to reduce allergenicity to such an extent that symptoms will not be elicited, while other methods might be promising but need more data. Literature on the effect of processing on allergenic potential and the ability to induce sensitisation is scarce. This is an important issue since processing may impact on the ability of proteins to cause the acquisition of allergic sensitisation, and the subject should be a focus of future research. Also, there remains a need to develop robust and integrated methods for the risk assessment of food allergenicity.

House dust mite (Der p 10) and crustacean allergic patients may react to food containing Yellow mealworm proteins

SCOPEnDue to the imminent growth of the world population, shortage of protein sources for human consumption will arise in the near future. Alternative and sustainable protein sources (e.g. insects) are being explored for the production of food and feed. In this project, the safety of Yellow mealworms (Tenebrio molitor L.) for human consumption was tested using approaches as advised by the European Food Safety Authority for allergenicity risk assessment.nnnMETHODS AND RESULTSnDifferent Yellow mealworm protein fractions were prepared, characterised, and tested for cross-reactivity using sera from patients with an inhalation or food allergy to biologically related species (House dust mite (HDM) and crustaceans) by immunoblotting and basophil activation. Furthermore, the stability was investigated using an in vitro pepsin digestion test. IgE from HDM- and crustacean allergic patients cross-reacted with Yellow mealworm proteins. This cross-reactivity was functional, as shown by the induction of basophil activation. The major cross-reactive proteins were identified as tropomyosin and arginine kinase, which are well known allergens in arthropods. These proteins were moderately stable in the pepsin stability test.nnnCONCLUSIONnBased on these cross-reactivity studies, there is a realistic possibility that HDM- and crustacean allergic patients may react to food containing Yellow mealworm proteins.

Current challenges facing the assessment of the allergenic capacity of food allergens in animal models

Food allergy is a major health problem of increasing concern. The insufficiency of protein sources for human nutrition in a world with a growing population is also a significant problem. The introduction of new protein sources into the diet, such as newly developed innovative foods or foods produced using new technologies and production processes, insects, algae, duckweed, or agricultural products from third countries, creates the opportunity for development of new food allergies, and this in turn has driven the need to develop test methods capable of characterizing the allergenic potential of novel food proteins. There is no doubt that robust and reliable animal models for the identification and characterization of food allergens would be valuable tools for safety assessment. However, although various animal models have been proposed for this purpose, to date, none have been formally validated as predictive and none are currently suitable to test the allergenic potential of new foods. Here, the design of various animal models are reviewed, including among others considerations of species and strain, diet, route of administration, dose and formulation of the test protein, relevant controls and endpoints measured.

Effect of thermal processing on mealworm allergenicity

SCOPEnThe growing world population requires the exploration of new sustainable protein sources to ensure food security. Insects such as mealworm are promising candidates. For safety reasons, a risk assessment, including allergy risks, is needed. Since allergenicity can be influenced by thermal processing, it is highly important to take this into account.nnnMETHODS AND RESULTSnFresh mealworm was heat processed and extracted by a sequential extraction method using in succession Tris, urea, and a combined SDS/DTT buffer. Extracts were tested using immunoblot, basophil activation test and skin prick test in 15 shrimp allergic patients, previously indicated as population at risk for mealworm allergy. Immunoblots showed a difference in IgE binding between processed and unprocessed mealworm extracts. However, this was due to change in solubility. Some allergens were soluble in urea buffer, but became more soluble in Tris buffer and vice versa. IgE binding was seen for all extracts in blot and basophil activation test. The results from 13 skin prick tests showed a skin reaction similar between processed and unprocessed mealworm.nnnCONCLUSIONnThermal processing did not lower allergenicity but clearly changed solubility of mealworm allergens. A sequential extraction method allowed for assessment of a broader protein panel.

Allergenicity assessment strategy for novel food proteins and protein sources

To solve the future food insecurity problem, alternative and sustainable protein sources (e.g. insects, rapeseed, fava bean and algae) are now being explored for the production of food and feed. To approve these novel protein sources for future food a comprehensive risk assessment is needed according to the European food legislation. Allergenicity risk assessment might pose some major difficulties, since detailed guidance on how to assess the allergenic potential of novel foods is not available. At present, the approach relies mostly on the guidance of allergenicity assessment for genetically modified (GM) plant foods. The most recent one was proposed by EFSA (2010 and 2011); weight-of-evidence approach. However this guidance is difficult to interpret, not completely applicable or validated for novel foods and therefore needs some adjustments. In this paper we propose a conceptual strategy which is based on the weight-of-evidence approach for food derived from GM plants and other strategies that were previously published in the literature. This strategy will give more guidance on how to assess the allergenicity of novel food proteins and protein sources.

Application of the adverse outcome pathway (AOP) concept to structure the available in vivo and in vitro mechanistic data for allergic sensitization to food proteins

BackgroundThe introduction of whole new foods in a population may lead to sensitization and food allergy. This constitutes a potential public health problem and a challenge to risk assessors and managers as the existing understanding of the pathophysiological processes and the currently available biological tools for prediction of the risk for food allergy development and the severity of the reaction are not sufficient. There is a substantial body of in vivo and in vitro data describing molecular and cellular events potentially involved in food sensitization. However, these events have not been organized in a sequence of related events that is plausible to result in sensitization, and useful to challenge current hypotheses. The aim of this manuscript was to collect and structure the current mechanistic understanding of sensitization induction to food proteins by applying the concept of adverse outcome pathway (AOP).Main bodyThe proposed AOP for food sensitization is based on information on molecular and cellular mechanisms and pathways evidenced to be involved in sensitization by food and food proteins and uses the AOPs for chemical skin sensitization and respiratory sensitization induction as templates. Available mechanistic data on protein respiratory sensitization were included to fill out gaps in the understanding of how proteins may affect cells, cell–cell interactions and tissue homeostasis. Analysis revealed several key events (KE) and biomarkers that may have potential use in testing and assessment of proteins for their sensitizing potential.ConclusionThe application of the AOP concept to structure mechanistic in vivo and in vitro knowledge has made it possible to identify a number of methods, each addressing a specific KE, that provide information about the food allergenic potential of new proteins. When applied in the context of an integrated strategy these methods may reduce, if not replace, current animal testing approaches. The proposed AOP will be shared at the www.aopwiki.org platform to expand the mechanistic data, improve the confidence in each of the proposed KE and key event relations (KERs), and allow for the identification of new, or refinement of established KE and KERs.

Is mealworm or shrimp allergy indicative for food allergy to insects

SCOPEnThe growing world population is a key driver for the exploration of sustainable protein sources to ensure food security. Mealworm and other insects are promising candidates. Previously we found that shrimp allergic patients are at risk for mealworm allergy, and that mealworm can induce a primary allergy . This study set out to investigate the allergenic potential of edible insects, suggested for human consumption by agencies such as WHO/FAO, in both the shrimp (potentially cross-reactive) and primary mealworm allergic population. The following insects were studied: mealworm, house cricket, giant mealworm, lesser mealworm, African grasshopper, large wax moth, and black soldier fly.nnnMETHODS AND RESULTSnFifteen shrimp (mealworm sensitized or allergic) patients and four primary mealworm allergic subjects, who participated in previous studies, were included. All shrimp allergic patients were sensitized to multiple insects with similar response profiles for all insects tested. Primary mealworm allergic patients, showed IgE binding to proteins from only a few insects on immunoblot, although basophil activation test was positive for all tested insects.nnnCONCLUSIONnShrimp allergic patients are most likely at risk of food allergy to mealworm and other insects. Primary mealworm allergy does not mean subjects are likely to react to all insects.

Current (food) Allergenic Risk Assessment: Is It Fit for Novel Foods? Status Quo and Identification of Gaps

Abstract Food allergies are recognized as a global health concern. In order to protect allergic consumers from severe symptoms, allergenic risk assessment for well‐known foods and foods containing genetically modified ingredients is installed. However, population is steadily growing and there is a rising need to provide adequate protein‐based foods, including novel sources, not yet used for human consumption. In this context safety issues such as a potential increased allergenic risk need to be assessed before marketing novel food sources. Therefore, the established allergenic risk assessment for genetically modified organisms needs to be re‐evaluated for its applicability for risk assessment of novel food proteins. Two different scenarios of allergic sensitization have to be assessed. The first scenario is the presence of already known allergenic structures in novel foods. For this, a comparative assessment can be performed and the range of cross‐reactivity can be explored, while in the second scenario allergic reactions are observed toward so far novel allergenic structures and no reference material is available. This review summarizes the current analytical methods for allergenic risk assessment, highlighting the strengths and limitations of each method and discussing the gaps in this assessment that need to be addressed in the near future.

Insect (food) allergy and allergens

Insects represent an alternative for meat and fish in satisfying the increasing demand for sustainable sources of nutrition. Approximately two billion people globally consume insects. They are particularly popular in Asia, Latin America, and Africa. Most research on insect allergy has focussed on occupational or inhalation allergy. Research on insect food safety, including allergenicity, is therefore of great importance. The objective of this review is to provide an overview of cases reporting allergy following insect ingestion, studies on food allergy to insects, proteins involved in insect allergy including cross-reactive proteins, and the possibility to alter the allergenic potential of insects by food processing and digestion. Food allergy to insects has been described for silkworm, mealworm, caterpillars, Bruchus lentis, sago worm, locust, grasshopper, cicada, bee, Clanis bilineata, and the food additive carmine, which is derived from female Dactylopius coccus insects. For cockroaches, which are also edible insects, only studies on inhalation allergy have been described. Various insect allergens have been identified including tropomyosin and arginine kinase, which are both pan-allergens known for their cross-reactivity with homologous proteins in crustaceans and house dust mite. Cross-reactivity and/or co-sensitization of insect tropomyosin and arginine kinase has been demonstrated in house dust mite and seafood (e.g. prawn, shrimp) allergic patients. In addition, many other (allergenic) species (various non-edible insects, arachnids, mites, seafoods, mammals, nematoda, trematoda, plants, and fungi) have been identified with sequence alignment analysis to show potential cross-reactivity with allergens of edible insects. It was also shown that thermal processing and digestion did not eliminate insect protein allergenicity. Although purified natural allergens are scarce and yields are low, recombinant allergens from cockroach, silkworm, and Indian mealmoth are readily available, giving opportunities for future research on diagnostic allergy tests and vaccine candidates.

A subset of walnut allergic adults is sensitized to walnut 11S globulin Jug r 4

The role of sensitization to commercially available allergens of English walnut (Juglans regia) Jug r 1, 2 and 3 in walnut allergy has been previously investigated in walnut allergic adults and was unable to explain all cases of walnut allergy.