Background

The diagnosis of shellfish allergy currently relies on patient history, skin prick test (SPT), and serum specific IgE (sIgE) quantification. These methods lack sufficient diagnostic accuracy, whereas the gold standard of oral food challenges is risky and burdensome. Markers of reactivity and severity of allergic reactions to shellfish will improve clinical care of these patients.

Objectives

This study compared the diagnostic performance of SPT, sIgE, basophil activation test (BAT), and IgE crosslinking-induced luciferase expression (EXiLE) test for shrimp allergy.

Methods

Thirty-five subjects with documented history of shrimp allergic reactions were recruited and grouped according to results of double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC). In addition to routine diagnostics, BAT (Flow CAST) and EXiLE test with shrimp extract and tropomyosin were performed.

Results

Of 35 subjects, 15 were shrimp allergic with pruritus, urticaria, and itchy mouth on DBPCFC, whereas 20 were tolerant to shrimp. Tropomyosin only accounted for 53.3% of sensitization among subjects with challenge-proven shrimp allergy. BAT using shrimp extract as stimulant showed the highest area under curve value (0.88), Youden Index (0.81), likelihood ratio (14.73), odds ratio (104), and variable importance (4.27) when compared with other assays and tropomyosin diagnosis. Results of BAT significantly correlated with those of EXiLE (r = 0.664, P < .0001).

Conclusions

BAT is a more accurate diagnostic marker for shrimp allergy than SPT and shrimp sIgE, whereas the EXiLE test based on an IgE crosslinking assay is a good alternative to BAT. Tropomyosin may not be the most important shrimp allergen in Chinese, which warrants further investigation to search for other major allergens and diagnostic markers.

BACKGROUND: Clinical management of shrimp allergy is hampered by the lack of accurate tests. Molecular diagnosis has been shown to more accurately reflect the clinical reactivity but the full spectrum of shrimp allergens and their clinical relevance are yet to be established. We therefore sought to comprehend the allergen repertoire of shrimp, investigate and compare the sensitization pattern and diagnostic value of the allergens in allergic subjects of two distinct populations. METHODS: Sera were collected from 85 subjects with challenge-proven or doctor-diagnosed shrimp allergy in Hong Kong and Thailand. The IgE-binding proteins of Penaeus monodon were probed by Western blotting and identified by mass spectrometry. Recombinant shrimp allergens were synthesized and analyzed for IgE sensitization by ELISA. RESULTS: Ten IgE-binding proteins were identified, and a comprehensive panel of 11 recombinant shrimp allergens was generated. The major shrimp allergens among Hong Kong subjects were troponin C (Pen m 6) and glycogen phosphorylase (Pen m 14, 47.1%), tropomyosin (Pen m 1, 41.2%) and sarcoplasmic-calcium binding protein (Pen m 4, 35.3%), while those among Thai subjects were Pen m 1 (68.8%), Pen m 6 (50.0%) and fatty acid-binding protein (Pen m 13, 37.5%). Component-based tests yielded significantly higher area under curve values (0.77-0.96) than shrimp extract-IgE test (0.70-0.75). Yet the best component test differed between populations; Pen m 1-IgE test added diagnostic value only in the Thai cohort, whereas sensitizations to other components were better predictors of shrimp allergy in Hong Kong patients. CONCLUSION: Pen m 14 was identified as a novel shrimp allergen predictive of challenge outcome. Molecular diagnosis better predicts shrimp allergy than conventional tests, but the relevant component is population dependent.