Bengal Physician Journal
Volume 10 | Issue 2 | Year 2023

Component-resolved Diagnostics in Allergy Practice Focusing on Food Allergy: A Systematic Review

Shambo S Samajdar1https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9199-0905, Shatavisa Mukherjee2, Sourya Ghosh3, Santanu Munshi4, Santanu K Tripathi5, Saibal Moitra6, Pudupakkam Vedanthan7

1Out Patient Department, Allergy & Asthma Treatment Centre; Department of Clinical Pharmacology, School of Tropical Medicine, Kolkata, West Bengal, India

2,4Department of Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology, School of Tropical Medicine, Kolkata, West Bengal, India

3Department of Pharmacy, NSHM Knowledge Campus, Kolkata, West Bengal, India

5Principal & Department of Pharmacology, Netaji Subhas Medical College and Hospital, Patna, Bihar, India

6Division of Allergy and Immunology, Apollo Multispeciality Hospitals, Kolkata, West Bengal, India

7Department of Medicine, University of Colorado at Anschutz Medical Campus City, Aurora, Colorado, United States of America

Corresponding Author: Shambo S Samajdar, Allergy & Asthma Treatment Centre; Department of Clinical Pharmacology, School of Tropical Medicine, Kolkata, West Bengal, India, Phone: + 91 9831892425, e-mail: shambopharmacology1986@gmail.com

How to cite this article: Samajdar SS, Mukherjee S, Ghosh S, et al. Component-resolved Diagnostics in Allergy Practice Focusing on Food Allergy: A Systematic Review. Bengal Physician Journal 2023;10(2):29–42.

Source of support: Nil

Conflict of interest: None

Received on: 30 May 2023; Accepted on: 30 June 2023; Published on: 04 August 2023


In this systematic review, we have discussed the role of component-resolved diagnostics (CRD) in the diagnosis of immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated food allergies; IgE-mediated food allergies are adverse reactions to food caused by an immunologic mechanism involving specific IgE (sIgE) antibodies. While self-reported food adverse reactions are common, the prevalence of confirmed food allergies through oral food challenge (OFC) is estimated to be around 1%. The conventional diagnostic process for food allergies involves clinical history, in vivo and/or in vitro tests, and OFC. However, many components used in these tests are irrelevant to the diagnostic process. Component-resolved diagnostics is a diagnostic technique that uses purified allergens to detect sIgE antibody responses against individual allergenic molecules. It aims to enhance the specificity of IgE testing and differentiate between genuine sensitization and cross-reactivity-induced sensitization. Component-resolved diagnostics also helps in stratifying the clinical risk associated with sensitization patterns and predicting OFC outcomes. However, CRD cannot replace the OFC as the gold standard due to insufficient sensitivity and specificity levels. Proper interpretation is crucial to avoid unnecessary elimination diets and auto-injector prescriptions that may impact patients’ quality of life. Component-resolved diagnostics plays a significant role in the diagnostic work-up of food allergies by identifying and characterizing allergenic compounds causing allergic responses. It enables differentiation between primary and secondary sensitization, predicts disease progression and clinical risk, and aids in stratifying OFC results. However, there are gaps in research and clinical practice. Commercial diagnostic tests are only available for a limited number of allergens, CRD is costly compared to other tests, and it lacks sufficient sensitivity and specificity to replace the OFC. Further research and initiatives are necessary to address these gaps and improve the use of CRD in food allergy diagnosis.

Keywords: Component-resolved diagnostics; Food allergy, Sensitization, Specific immunoglobulin E.


Food allergy is a condition characterized by unwanted and adverse reactions to exposure or consumption of various food items that are mediated by specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibodies (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1: Schematic representation of the response in the body to food allergy

These food allergic reactions can be either local or systemic in nature and can also result in death. The global prevalence of this type of food allergy varies depending on age and country. On the contrary, self-reported adverse food reactions are relatively common, with an incidence of up to 17%. However, when confirmed through an oral food challenge (OFC), the prevalence of food allergies drops significantly to an estimated 1%. This suggests that while many people may believe they have a food allergy, the actual prevalence of clinically confirmed cases is much lower on top of the form.1 Many times, it is also crucial to differentiate between IgE-mediated and non-IgE-mediated food adverse reactions (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2: Schematic diagram for major food allergen

The standard procedure for diagnosing an IgE-mediated food allergy involves several steps. It begins with gathering the patient’s clinical history, followed by conducting an in vivo test such as a skin prick test (SPT), or an in vitro test such as a specific IgE (sIgE) test that is determined against the entire allergen source. Finally, the process typically concludes with an OFC, which is considered the gold standard for diagnosing food allergies. It is crucial to note that many of the components found in the allergenic extracts utilized for SPT and/or sIgE testing are not relevant to the diagnostic process, potentially leading to unnecessary testing and confusion in interpreting the results.2 Over the past few decades, various advancements have been made in the field of allergology, particularly in the diagnostic realm. Advances in biotechnology and protein chemistry have allowed for the production of numerous allergenic proteins that have been either naturally purified or produced via recombinant DNA technology. These allergens are utilized in both conventional sIgE antibody assays, such as the singleplex ImmunoCAP platform (Thermofisher), and multiplex microarray-based systems such as the ALEX2 (Macroarray Diagnostics). These innovations in molecular allergen testing provide more precise and comprehensive information about specific allergens, enabling healthcare professionals to accurately identify and diagnose allergies in patients. This molecular approach to allergen testing has greatly improved the accuracy and specificity of allergy diagnostics, allowing for more targeted treatment strategies.3 Component-resolved diagnostics (CRD) is a technology that utilizes naturally purified or recombinantly produced allergens that are coated on a solid surface to detect sIgE antibodies against the coated components in addition to the patient sample. This approach enables a more detailed analysis of an individual’s allergic sensitization by identifying the specific allergenic components they react to, rather than using whole allergen extracts. By using CRD, healthcare professionals can gain insights into the precise allergens responsible for a patient’s allergic reactions. This information allows for a more accurate diagnosis, improved risk assessment, and tailored treatment strategies, leading to better management of allergic diseases.4 Furthermore, CRD aims to decipher and characterize the sensitization profile of individuals with food-induced allergies at the individual protein level, with one of the aims being to improve the specificity of the sIgE assay. By using this technology, healthcare professionals are able to differentiate between true sensitization and sensitization caused by cross-reactivity. This technique provides a more detailed understanding of the specific allergenic components to which a patient is sensitized, helping to accurately identify the culprits responsible for allergic reactions. By distinguishing between genuine sensitization and cross-reactivity, CRD enhances the precision and reliability of sIgE testing, enabling targeted and individualized management strategies for food-allergic patients.5 Furthermore, CRD has been developed and optimized to provide significant improvements in the accuracy of sIgE-focused technological platforms in diagnosing food allergies. Also, CRD allows for the stratification of clinical risk that is linked to precise sensitization patterns and profiles. Furthermore, CRD is valuable in the prediction of OFC outcomes, which is also valuable in managing allergies. However, despite these advancements, research is still underway to identify specific cutoff values for clinical reactivity on exposure to different allergens. It is important to note that while CRD enhances diagnostic accuracy, its specificity and sensitivity levels are still insufficient to replace the gold standard for diagnosing food allergies, which is the OFC. The OFC remains crucial in confirming the presence of food allergies and evaluating the severity of reactions, making it an indispensable part of the diagnostic process.2 While CRD is a valuable approach in diagnosing food allergies, it is essential to interpret the results correctly to prevent unnecessary prescription of elimination diets and adrenaline auto-injectors. The incorrect interpretation could lead to overdiagnosis and unnecessarily restrictive diets, negatively impacting the patient’s quality of life. It is crucial for healthcare professionals to consider the clinical context, patient history, and additional diagnostic tools such as OFCs to ensure accurate and appropriate management of food allergies. By carefully evaluating the CRD results alongside other clinical factors, healthcare providers can strike a balance between effective treatment and minimizing unnecessary restrictions and interventions, ultimately improving the patient’s overall well-being.


This review provides a comprehensive summary of the latest concepts and advancements in CRD related to food allergies. The study focuses on developing a clinically relevant strategy, primarily prioritizing the most common allergens that cause IgE-mediated responses in the pediatric population. The researchers conducted PubMed searches using relevant keywords and limited the search to references from May 2019. The International Union of Immunological Societies (IUIS)-based nomenclature system has also been utilized to ensure consistency in allergen terminology. This review serves as a valuable resource for understanding the advancements and the utility of CRD in the context of food allergies, particularly in children.6,7

Cow’s Milk

Cow’s milk (CM) is a significant cause of food allergy and anaphylaxis in children. It is a vital source of protein, energy, and calcium for the pediatric population. The prevalence of cow’s milk protein allergy (CMPA) during the first year of life ranges from 1.8 to 7.5%. This highlights the importance of recognizing and managing CMPA in pediatric populations. Also, CMPA can have significant implications for a child’s nutrition and overall health, making early detection and appropriate dietary interventions crucial for affected individuals.1 CMPA is commonly diagnosed based on the clinical history of the patient, which raises suspicion along with different diagnostic tests such as the in vitro sIgE test and/or in vivo SPT. Cow’s milk contains various proteins with unique characteristics, including caseins, β-lactoglobulin, and α-lactalbumin, which are frequently identified as allergenic components. The majority of those with CMPA are allergic to these common CM allergens. Furthermore, the majority of patients afflicted with CMPA show hypersensitivity to both the whey and casein components. This information underscores the importance of identifying the specific allergenic components in CM when diagnosing and managing CMPA.8,9 Cow’s milk proteins belong to the category of type I food allergens. These proteins have the ability to persist in the gastrointestinal tract, and if ingested, they can lead to allergic sensitization and trigger systemic allergic responses. This means that individuals with a milk allergy may experience allergic reactions throughout their bodies when even small amounts of CM proteins are consumed. It highlights the significance of understanding the potential risks associated with CM protein ingestion for those who are allergic.10 In the general population, various sensitivity patterns to CM allergens have been observed. Sensitivities to casein, β-lactoglobulin, and α-lactalbumin are often associated with each other, indicating a shared IgE response. On the contrary, sensitivity to bovine serum albumin (BSA) is unrelated to other CM allergenic components and has the potential of cross-reacting with beef proteins. Molecular diagnostics can be used to monitor CMPA and the development of tolerance to cow milk. This information highlights the complex nature of CM sensitivities and the potential for tracking tolerance using advanced diagnostic techniques.

A prospective study discovered that children diagnosed with CMPA and low levels of sIgE (sIgE) to components, such as α-lactalbumin, β-lactoglobulin, κ-casein, and αs1-casein, had a higher likelihood of developing tolerance to CM. This finding suggests that measuring the blood levels of sIgE to these specific CM proteins may be potentially utilized to predict the likelihood of tolerance development in children with CMPA.9 Consistent IgE epitope-binding patterns were observed in individuals with persistent cow’s milk allergy (CMA). The development of tolerance to CM was associated with a decrease in IgE epitope binding and an increase in equivalent immunoglobulin G4 (IgG4) epitope binding. This suggests that changes in the binding patterns of IgE and IgG4 antibodies to specific epitopes play a role in the development of tolerance to CM. These findings provide insight into the immunological mechanisms underlying the transition from allergic reactions to tolerance in individuals with CM allergy.11,12 The monitoring of casein-specific and β-lactoglobulin-sIgE concentrations, along with the assessment of IgE/immunoglobulin G (IgG) ratios, can aid in predicting which patients are likely to develop tolerance to CM. By observing the levels of these sIgE antibodies and the balance between IgE and IgG antibodies, healthcare professionals can make informed predictions about the potential acquisition of tolerance to CM in patients. This monitoring approach provides valuable insights into the progression and potential outcomes of CM allergy, enabling personalized management strategies for individuals with CM allergies.13

Intense heating, such as baking, modifies the allergenic properties of CM proteins. Caseins, compared to whey proteins, are more resistant to heat. The allergenicity of β-lactoglobulin is reduced through the formation of intermolecular disulfide linkages and binding to other dietary proteins during the heating process.14,15 Children who have a weak CMPA (IgE-mediated) usually tolerate extensively heated cow’s milk products. Conversely, children who react to the consumption of baked milk have a higher risk of experiencing a systemic reaction such as anaphylaxis and a more prolonged CMPA. In cases of chronic CMPA, children develop IgE antibodies against sequential cow’s milk protein epitopes, particularly casein. On the contrary, children who can tolerate and consume baked milk products produce IgE antibodies against the conformational cow’s milk protein epitopes, which are denatured via high temperatures.16 Elevated levels of sIgE antibodies targeting casein may suggest an absence of tolerance to baked milk. However, incorporating baked milk products into the diet of children with CMPA seems to accelerate the development of tolerance to CM.1720

The use of sIgE antibody levels can help identify patients who are at a higher risk of experiencing severe reactions during milk oral immunotherapy (OIT). Literature suggests that a thorough evaluation of IgE and IgG4 binding to CM peptides can predict the likelihood of a reaction to milk OIT and improve the safety of milk OIT by enhancing risk assessment.21,22

Generally, CMPA has a positive prognosis, with most children becoming tolerant by school age. However, CMPA may persist into adolescence or adulthood if cow milk-sIgE (CM-sIgE) levels exceed 50 kUA/L. While CRD does not surpass traditional diagnostic methods using whole allergen extracts for diagnosing CMPA, it can be valuable in ascertaining tolerance development to milk that has been extensively heated and predicting the progression of CMPA, as well as the response on performing milk OIT2325 (Table 1).

Table 1: Cow’s milk protein and allergenicity
CM Protein Allergen Allergenicity Features
Casein family (coagulum; it has approximately 80% of the CM proteins)
Casein Bos d 8 Major Resistant to high temperatures
High sequence homology (>85%) with proteins from goat and sheep
Very low cross-reactivity (<5%) with milk from donkey, mare, buffalo, or camel
αs1-casein Bos d 9 Major
αs2-casein Bos d 10 Major
β-casein Bos d 11 Major
κ-casein Bos d 12 Major
Whey (sensible to heating, lose IgE binding after 15–20 minutes of boiling at >90°C)16
α-lactalbumin Bos d 4 Major ~65% of whey; present in the milk of almost all mammals
β-lactoglobulin Bos d 5 Major ~25% of whey; not present in the human breast milk
BSA Bos d 6 Minor ~8% of whey, is one of the major beef allergens, responsible for cross-reactivity between CM and raw beef
Immunoglobulins Bos d 7 Minor Especially G class, may play a role in cross-reactivity with beef8
Lactoferrin Bos d lactoferrin* Minor Is a multifunctional protein of the transferrin family8
*Semiquantitative methodology applied data available only

Hen Egg

Allergic reactions to hen eggs are a common IgE-mediated reaction in children, affecting around 1–2% of children and exhibiting phenotypic variability. Egg allergy can have different phenotypes, including individuals who can tolerate eggs in highly cooked/baked items. Hen eggs contain various proteins, with Gal d 1–5 being the most commonly implicated allergens (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3: Schematic showing egg allergens highlighting all major egg allergens with some of their physicochemical properties

Ovomucoid, in spite of being present in lower concentrations in egg whites compared to ovalbumin, is considered the dominant allergen in hen egg allergy. Testing for IgE antibodies against egg white proteins is commonly used for the diagnosis and management of egg allergy in children, as it includes the major allergens, such as ovomucoid and ovalbumin, making it a precise test for the initial diagnostic stage.2628 Multiple studies have suggested using cutoff values to diagnose egg allergy without conducting an OFC. However, no single cutoff value can provide a definitive diagnosis of egg allergy. Further research is necessary to establish diagnostic thresholds for heated and baked egg allergy.2931 Molecular diagnostics offers potential benefits in achieving a more accurate diagnosis of egg allergy, especially in assessing different clinical scenarios:

  • Patients with clinical tolerance to hen eggs despite sensitization, typically show positive blood IgE tests to egg whites in the low to midrange, along with negative or low serum IgE tests to ovomucoid.

  • Patients who tolerate and consume cooked eggs or processed foods containing cooked eggs often exhibit high serum sIgE levels to ovalbumin, similar to the levels observed in the test for egg white.

  • Individuals allergic to all forms of egg, including raw and cooked, commonly have medium to high serum sIgE levels to egg white. Increased levels of serum sIgE to ovomucoid and ovalbumin may also be present.

Moreover, numerous toddlers have demonstrated tolerance to highly heated eggs, as extensive heating reduces the allergenicity of eggs. A significant percentage (64–84%) of children allergic to eggs can consume baked egg products without adverse reactions.32 Children with hen egg allergy frequently exhibit tolerance to the baked egg when it is consumed in a wheat matrix.33 The introduction of a diet containing baked eggs has been observed to expedite the establishment of egg tolerance in contrast to complete avoidance. However, specific indicators for predicting the natural development of tolerance to cooked and raw eggs in egg-allergic patients have not yet been identified.

IgE reactivity to ovomucoid Gal d 1 is a potential predictor of clinical egg allergy.34 Gal d 1-positive children are more prone to egg allergy, while those negative to Gal d 1 tend to tolerate eggs that have been boiled better. The sIgE levels to ovomucoid may aid in predicting the outcomes of food challenges involving eggs that have been cooked, but it does not replace egg white sIgE testing in evaluating egg allergy.35 Sequential testing of IgE to egg white followed by IgE to ovomucoid significantly enhances diagnostic sensitivity compared to testing egg white alone.36 Patients with IgE binding to conformational epitopes in hen eggs are more likely to resolve their allergy than those with IgE binding to sequential epitopes.37 Additionally, ovalbumin-sIgG4 is an independent predictor of tolerance development to raw eggs. The ovalbumin-sIgE/sIgG4 ratio, along with SPT, can help identify individuals likely to tolerate both cooked and raw eggs.38

Studies using murine models and observational human investigations have shown that a baked egg diet can lead to clinical remission of egg allergy and favorable immunological changes.39 However, some studies do not support the immune-modifying effects of a diet involving baked eggs.39 Due to the potential for systemic symptoms and anaphylaxis, the introduction of baked milk and eggs should be done under medical supervision.40 Furthermore, OFC is often necessary for diagnosis and monitoring, but efforts are being made to explore alternative methods such as CRD, microarray-based platforms, and epitope mapping to potentially reduce the need for OFCs.2,5 Serum IgE measurement or SPT of egg whites is currently recommended as the initial diagnostic test, with the use of molecular components being a promising approach to ascertain tolerance to eggs that have been cooked.2 However, the final interpretation must be done by an allergist taking the patient’s clinical history into consideration2 (Table 2).

Table 2: The molecular allergens available for CRD for hen eggs
Hen eggs allergen name Features
nGal d 1
White-serine protease inhibition activity with high resistance to heating and chemical denaturation
Highly allergenic, correlated to high risk for reaction to all forms of egg
nGal d 2
Serine protease inhibitor, heat labile
It is the most abundant egg white protein
It is correlated with risk for clinical reaction to raw or slightly heated egg and certain vaccines
nGal d 3
Low resistance to heating and chemical denaturation
nGal d 5* Hen yolk/chicken meat
*Available only for semiquantitative methods

Soybean Allergy

Soybean allergies in infants, particularly those with CMPA who consume soy-based formula, are attributed to gastrointestinal sensitivity.3,4143 Soybean contains multiple allergens, including Gly m 5, Gly m 6, and Gly m 8 from the seed storage proteins (SSP) family, which are stable to heat and digestion and associated with systemic responses.4143 Oral allergy syndrome (OAS) is linked to Gly m 4, a pathogenesis-related class 10 protein (PR-10), and can trigger allergic responses in individuals who are allergic to birch pollen.5,44 Consumption of lightly processed soy by birch pollen–allergic individuals with Gly m 4 sensitivity may lead to severe reactions.45 Soy is also found as a hidden allergen in various processed foods3 (Table 3).

Table 3: Soybean molecular allergens available for CRD
Soybean allergen name Biochemical name and features
    Cross-reactive allergen
rGly m 4 PR-10 Reactions in Birch-allergic patients
nGly m 5 (β–conglycinin) 7S Globuline Major allergens
    Implicated in primary sensitization
nGly m 6 (Glycinin) 11S Globuline Severe reactions

Allergy to Peanuts, Tree Nuts, and Seeds

The IgE-mediated responses to nut proteins are common in peanut and tree nut allergies. There are two distinct types of nut allergies: (A) type I reactions, which encompass primary nut allergies characterized by severe and systemic reactions to nuts, and (B) pollen food syndrome (PFS) or OAS, which involves seasonal allergic rhinitis and mild symptoms in the mouth and throat when consuming fresh fruits, vegetables, or nuts.46,47 Primary nut allergies are most commonly observed in children under the age of five.48 The prevalence of nut allergy differs depending on the population studied, research methods and diagnostic criteria employed.47 Peanut allergies have been reported to range in frequency between 0.5 and 2.5%, while tree nut allergies range between 0.2 and 2.2%.49 Severe and prolonged symptoms frequently occur as a result of nut allergies. Severe non-fatal and fatal allergic responses, particularly among teenagers and young adults, are predominantly associated with nut allergies.50 Peanut and tree nut allergies are the primary causes of anaphylaxis-related deaths in teenagers and young adults.51 Importantly, patients with a clinical history of asthma are at a heightened risk of encountering severe allergic reactions to food.52

The clinical history of a patient is an important tool for identifying nut allergies. The occurrence of an immediate reaction after consuming peanuts or tree nuts, combined with positive sIgE testing, often provides enough evidence to confirm a suspected IgE-mediated allergy.47 Diagnostic methods typically include SPTs or serum-sIgE tests. The size of the SPT wheal or sIgE titer level correlates with the likelihood of clinical allergy but may not be necessarily severe.47 Additionally, CRD improves the accuracy of diagnosis and helps the assessment of both the risk and nature of the allergic response1,2 (Table 4). The main allergen in peanuts is Ara h 2 and measuring Ara h 2 sIgE levels may provide better discrimination between the allergic children vs tolerant children compared to total peanut extract sIgE.53 Threshold values for Ara h 2 have been established in various studies, with the predictive value varying across distinct populations. Measurements of Ara h 1, 3, and 6 are not as informative in this context. In situations where peanut sIgE is positive and sIgE Ara h 2 is negative, incorporating additional peanut components, along with the clinical context, can be helpful. On the contrary, isolated sensitivity to Ara h 8 (PR-10 protein and birch pollen allergen Bet v 1-homologue) is associated with milder or limited symptoms.54 In certain regions such as southern Europe, the presence of lipid transfer protein (LTP) (Ara h 9) is linked to more severe systemic reactions and can serve as an indicator of severity.55 Individuals with profilin or cross-reactive carbohydrate determinants (CCD) sensitization to peanuts typically experience minimal or mild oral symptoms, and they may tolerate heated peanuts.2,5

Modern-day in vitro diagnostics is plagued with CCD-based false positive sensitizations that rarely result in clinical manifestations. These CCD components are present across the entire allergenic spectrum in pollens, venom, fruits, seeds, nuts, legumes, crustaceans, etc. Approximately 20% of the allergic population produce IgE antibodies to the CCD components which result in multiple positive results in an allergy report as a result of cross-reactivity.56 The ALEX2 (Macroarray Diagnostics) via the usage of molecular components and an inbuilt CCD inhibitor drastically minimizes CCD-based sIgE binding and false positive results, thereby preventing unwanted dietary restrictions and other management necessities.

Table 4: The molecular allergens available for CRD for peanuts and tree nuts
  Biochemical name
Stable proteins Labile proteins
Allergen source SSP LTP PR-10
Arachis hypogaea
rAra h 1
rAra h 2
rAra h 3
rAra h 6
rAra h 9 rAra h 8
Corylus avellana
rCor a 9
rCor a 14
rCor a 8 rCor a 1
Cashew nut
Anacardium occidentale
rAna o 3
rAna o 2*
Juglans regia
rJug r 1
nJug r 2*
rJug r 3  
Brazil nut
Bertholletia axcelsa
rBer e 1    
*Available only for semiquantitative methods

Sensitization to the hazelnut components Cor a 9 and Cor a 14 exhibits higher specificity for primary hazelnut allergies when compared to hazelnut extract sIgE. However, the predictive values may vary among different populations.56 Sensitivity to Cor a 9 and Cor a 14 significantly influences the threshold levels for hazelnut allergies57 and is a predictor of more severe allergic reactions.13 The presence of isolated sIgE to Cor a 1 (PR-10, Bet v 1 homolog) is frequently associated with clinical tolerance or mild subjective oral symptoms. This indicates the likelihood of PFS rather than a primary nut allergy.9 When there is sensitization to both PR-10 nut components and seed storage components (such as Ara h 1, Ara h 2, Ara h 3, and Ara h 6 or Cor a 9 and Cor a 14), a thorough evaluation of the patient’s medical history is necessary. This combination suggests an underlying nut allergy,58 emphasizing the need for a comprehensive assessment.58 Reactions to nuts may indicate sensitization to non-specific LTP, such as Ara h 9 or Cor a 8, which have been associated with moderate-to-severe levels of systemic responses.59 Sensitization to SSP such as Jug r 1, Jug r 2, or LTP (Jug r 3) is associated with severe reactions in individuals allergic to walnuts.60 Ana o 3 has demonstrated strong predictive capabilities for cashew nut allergy, with sIgE to cashew components exhibiting superior diagnostic performance compared to cashew-sIgE or SPT specifically in children.61 Due to the wide repertoire of allergens involved in peanut allergies and other nut allergies, multiplex systems that incorporate various allergenic components such as the ALEX2 (Macroarray Diagnostics) are crucial in providing a holistic image of an individual’s allergic status along with additional information such as risk stratification and prognostic information. The ALEX2 has demonstrated significant sensitivity of 94.7%, and specificity of 95.7% in peanut-allergic individuals, while demonstrating a sensitivity of 100% in hazelnut patients and a specificity of 91.3%.

Limited research on sesame allergy in children is available in the current literature.62 Existing studies on sesame-allergic individuals have identified seven allergenic proteins, including five SSPs (Ses i 1, Ses i 2, Ses i 3, Ses i 6, and Ses i 7) and two oleosins (Ses i 4 and Ses i 5).7 Sensitization to rSes i 1 (a SSP) showed similar sensitivity to sesame-sIgE (86.1% for rSes i 1 vs 83.3% for sesame), but higher specificity (85.7% vs 48.2%) in a study involving 92 sesame-sensitized children.63

The CRD testing serves multiple purposes, as it not only aids in assessing the probability of a positive OFC, but also offers valuable insights for distinguishing between primary anaphylaxis and pollen-related food allergies. Additionally, it assists in identifying cross-reactivity and co-sensitization among allergens.64 Nonetheless, a recent systematic review that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy and risk assessment of CRD for food allergies revealed a limited number of studies available for each component, along with discrepancies in the cutoff values employed. This underscores the necessity for additional research in this area to enhance our understanding.65 It is important to remember that clinical response may not always align with allergen sensitization, and therefore, all sIgE tests, including CRD, should be interpreted alongside the medical background of the individual.56,58 Additionally, a recent study uncovered that the reliance solely on suggestive symptoms and positive IgE testing for the diagnosis of food allergies was only partially validated in comparison to the gold standard of a food challenge.66

Food challenges, recognized as the gold standard, play a crucial role in definitively confirming or excluding a diagnosis when the patient’s medical history and sIgE test results do not yield a conclusive outcome.47,67 When serological cross-reactivity, co-sensitization, and clinically relevant cross-reactivity or co-allergy cannot be adequately distinguished through sIgE tests, performing a targeted OFC specifically for nuts may be essential to establish a definitive diagnosis.67 Therefore, to ensure optimal nutritional and medical care, the implementation of OFC should be tailored to the individual’s unique clinical circumstances.68

Wheat Allergy

The IgE-mediated wheat hypersensitivity can present through diverse routes, encompassing oral intake (food allergy), inhalation (occupational asthma/rhinitis, e.g., baker’s asthma), cutaneous contact (contact urticaria), or subsequent physical exertion after wheat consumption [wheat-dependent exercise-induced anaphylaxis (WDEIA)].69 Wheat sensitivity affects approximately 4% of preschool children.70 The prevalence of wheat allergy rises from 2% to 9% among children aged 2–10 years, primarily attributable to secondary sensitization in individuals with a concurrent grass pollen allergy.71,72 Nevertheless, primary wheat allergy generally emerges during early childhood and has a tendency to resolve by the age of 3–5 years.73 Additionally, the estimated prevalence of wheat allergy among children under the age of three is up to 8%, whereas its occurrence is lower in adolescents and adults, impacting approximately 2% of the population.7477 Among bakery employees, Baker’s asthma is observed in approximately 1–10% of individuals, with a higher occurrence in men.7881 Furthermore, WDEIA often manifests in teenagers and young adults who consume products made from wheat and engage in physical activity.82 To date, researchers have identified 28 allergenic components in wheat grains2,7,83,84 (Table 5). The albumin/globulin (A/G) fraction is composed of α-amylase/trypsin inhibitors (Tri aA_TI), the non-specific LTP Tri a 14, and the wheat serpin Tri a 33. Within the gluten fraction, there are components such as Tri a 19 (omega-5 gliadin), along with the high molecular weight glutenins Tri a 26 and the low molecular weight glutenins Tri a 36.2,84 Also, Tri aA_TIs play a role in both food allergy and WDEIA. Furthermore, Tri a 14 is a food allergen associated with baker’s asthma in Italian individuals with wheat allergy, while Tri a 33 is implicated in both respiratory and food allergies to wheat.2,84 Wheat gliadins are regarded as markers of true wheat sensitization, with Tri a 19 being the primary allergen in WDEIA and an important allergen in young infants experiencing acute adverse immune responses to consumed wheat.85 Furthermore, Tri a 36, which is a major allergen in individuals with WDEIA, exhibits an elevated expression during the development of wheat seeds. It contains a heat- and enzymatic digestion-resistant domain.86 When evaluating patients suspected of wheat allergies, a comprehensive medical history is always obtained, which includes assessing for respiratory allergies triggered by pollen. In addition, diagnostic measures such as SPT with wheat, detection of sIgE for the relevant allergens, and analysis of various molecular components such as wheat, gliadin, rTri a 14, and Tri a 19 are conducted.2

Table 5: Wheat molecular allergens available for CRD
Allergen name Biochemical name Clinical relevance
Tri a 14 Non-specific LTP 1 Food allergen in Italian patients
Baker’s asthma
Tri a 19 ω-5 gliadin Food allergy in children
nTri aA_TI* α-Amylase inhibitors Food allergy
*Available only for semiquantitative methods

Fruits and Vegetable Allergy

Adolescents and adults commonly experience allergies to fruits and vegetables. The identification of allergens associated with cross-reactivity patterns has contributed to an improved understanding of sensitization processes and the impact of allergen profiles on different phenotypes.87 Fruits and vegetables can cause allergies from initial sensitization to food allergens via the gastrointestinal tract or subsequent sensitization to cross-reactive food allergens due to pre-existing sensitization to related latex and pollen allergens.88 The predominant clinical presentations of fruit and vegetable allergies are characterized by LTP and PFS syndrome.87 Furthermore, PFS, also known as OAS, is an allergic response to plant-based foods that results in itching of the lips, tongue, and mouth. Unlike typical food allergies, OAS necessitates prior sensitization to a cross-reactive inhalant allergen before becoming sensitized to a specific protein in the food.89 Proteins found in pollen and certain plant-derived foods can trigger an IgE-mediated response in OAS due to their structural similarity. In individuals with grass allergies, consuming raw foods such as melon, orange, or tomato can result in an allergic reaction. However, not all pollen-sensitive patients experience cross-reactions and PFS-like symptoms.90 In PFS, allergies from vegetables and fruit primarily cause sensitization that occurs through exposure to unstable pollen allergens such as PR-10 (Bet v 1 type allergen) or profilins, leading to mild local oropharyngeal responses. Conversely, LTP syndrome is associated with sensitization to persistent plant–food allergens called LTPs, which can lead to recurrent systemic reactions and potentially even anaphylaxis.87 Fruits from the Rosaceae family, including apricot, apple, peach, strawberry, pear, and raspberry, are recognized for triggering adverse reactions.91 These fruits can be ingested in both fresh or processed, and allergenic compounds can be found in both the peel and pulp.2 Information regarding the prevalence of allergies to fresh fruits is limited. with estimates ranging from 0.1 to 4.3% in a comprehensive evaluation of overall fruit allergy incidence.92 Among the general population, peaches exhibit the highest allergic sensitization (7.9%). Subsequently, apples account for 6.5% of reported allergies, followed by kiwis at 5.2%.93 Similarly, vegetables, and fruit can also exacerbate allergy symptoms in hypersensitive individuals.94 Foods belonging to the Apiaceae family, including celery and carrot, are widely recognized as potential allergens and are commonly consumed in both raw and cooked forms.95 Table 6 demonstrates that the majority of plant–food allergens can be classified into three protein families, namely, PR-10, LTP, and profilins.96 Within the PR-10 family, the primary allergen is found in fruits of the Rosaceae family (e.g., Pru p 1 in peach and Mal d 1 in apple).97 Similarly, the PR-10 protein in carrots and celery, which belongs to the Apiaceae family, is a significant allergen, particularly in Central Europe.98 These allergenic proteins are present in both the pulp and peel of fruits and vegetables. They are sensitive to heat and low pH, and their production is influenced by environmental stress and pathogen attacks.99 Generally, these allergens tend to cause mild responses in the oral cavity, although the allergenicity can be affected by fruit processing methods such as the pasteurization of juices and jams.96 On the contrary, LTPs are small proteins characterized by a compact tertiary structure comprising four disulfide bridges. These proteins play a crucial role in the transportation of lipids across cell walls.100 These allergens can be found in different fruits, including apricots, apples, peaches, plums, cherries, raspberries, pears, blackberries, strawberries, and others, predominantly in the surface tissues such as the peel.101 They are proteins that are heat resistant and acidic pH and are known to be upregulated in response to pathogen attacks.100 These unique characteristics of the allergens can lead to generalized systemic reactions in individuals who are sensitized.102 Celery contains two types of non-specific lipid transfer proteins (nsLTPs). Also, nsLTP type I (Api g 2) is expressed in the stalks, while nsLTP type II (Api g 6) is expressed in the tuber.103,104 In populations living in the Mediterranean region, there is a higher occurrence of sensitization rates to LTPs compared to those residing in northern Europe, where sensitization to PR-10 proteins is more prevalent.105,106 The variation in sensitization rates between these regions is associated with higher exposure to Fagales tree pollen (such as alder, birch, and hazel) and subsequent sensitization to Bet v 1.2 Profilins, which are small and widely distributed proteins found in plants, are involved in cellular signal transmission pathways and exhibit low to intermediate heat stability.107 Profilin sensitization is prevalent, but its clinical significance is limited to a few cases.108 Allergies to apples, peaches, pears, and strawberries have been associated with this type of sensitization.109 In the case of vegetable allergies, profilin is considered a significant sensitizer for individuals allergic to celery, while its impact is minor in carrot allergies.2 The prevalence of profilin sensitization is evenly distributed but more common in the Mediterranean region.2 Biotic and abiotic stressors contribute to the production of thaumatin-like proteins (TLPs), which possess a rigid three-dimensional structure formed by eight disulfide bridges from cysteine residues. Allergies to peaches, kiwis, apples, and cherries are attributed to these proteins.110 Based on evidence from peaches, apples, and cherries, TLPs are classified as mild allergens.2 Panallergens such as Bet v 1-related food proteins, profilins, and nsLTPs exhibit significant cross-reactivity across various plant species.111 These protein families have been linked to various clinical manifestations, such as the development of OAS and anaphylaxis. Notably, nsLTP-mediated fruit allergies tend to elicit systemic responses more frequently than those mediated by Bet v 1 or profilin.2 The presentation of fruit allergies can differ based on the attributes of allergen families and the mode of sensitization. Patients sensitized to plants in the Betulaceae family may develop sIgE antibodies against Bet v 1-homologous proteins found in various fruits from the Rosaceae family.99 The ingestion of raw fruits commonly results in moderate symptoms predominantly confined to the oral cavity (OAS).99 In some cases, individuals initially sensitized to peaches (with Pru p 3 acting as a sensitizer) may acquire cross-sensitization to other fruits containing LTPs, leading to sensitization to non-specific LTPs.101,102,112 The ALEX2 Allergy Explorer (Macroarray Diagnostics) based on a multiplex microarray system has demonstrated significant sensitivity (94.1%) and specificity (100%) in the diagnosis of peach allergies due to its ability to test for multiple peach allergenic components simultaneously.112

Table 6: Plant–foods molecular allergens available for CRD
Fruit/vegetable source Biochemical name
Actinidin LTP Kiwellin TLP PR-10 Profilin
Malus domestica
  rMal d 3     rMal d 1  
Actinidia deliciosa
nAct d 1*   nAct d 5* nAct d 2* rAct d 8  
Prunus persica
  rPru p 3     rPru p 1 rPru p 4
Apium graveolens
        rApi g 1.01  
*Available only for semiquantitative methods

Clinical presentations can vary from localized symptoms to severe anaphylaxis, also known as “LTP syndrome.” The clinical presentation can be influenced by co-factors such as alcohol consumption and medication use, or physical factors such as exertion.113 LTPs are one of the primary causes of anaphylaxis caused by food in Italian adults, although the percentage of sensitized patients who developed sensitivity or hypersensitivity experiencing anaphylactic episodes is less compared to allergens such as almonds, peanuts, or prawns. This has led some researchers to consider LTPs as a potentially hazardous yet “harmless” allergen.111 Patients who have developed sensitization to profilins present in grass pollen (Poaceae family) may experience cross-reactivity to the profilin found in fruits from the Rosaceae family.114 However, profilin sensitization often remains clinically silent.108 When symptomatic, the main clinical manifestation is OAS, with a low to moderate risk of a systemic allergic response.109 Kiwifruit allergies can be initiated either through primary sensitization due to gastrointestinal food allergy or through cross-reactivity with allergens from birch or grass pollens and latex. This cross-reactivity occurs because of a similar protein found in kiwifruit, which bears a resemblance to Hev b 11, a latex chitinase.2 Kiwifruit allergy symptoms vary in severity, from mild symptoms in the mouth and throat to serious systemic reactions. Actinidin (Act d 1) is the main allergen found in kiwifruit and is closely linked with sensitivity to this fruit.115 Research has shown that allergen sensitization to Act d 8 and Act d 9 is specific to individuals suffering from pollen-kiwifruit allergies.115 The cross-reactivity between kiwifruit nsLTP (Act d 10) and other nsLTPs is minimal due to a lack of significant homology.116 Other fruits such as avocado, mango, chestnut, and banana have shown cross-reactivity with latex allergens, resulting in a condition termed “latex–fruit syndrome” (LFS).2 First identified in 1994, LFS is a hypersensitivity reaction to certain raw fruits. This condition impacts around 30–50% of individuals with a natural rubber latex (NRL) allergy and involves IgE antibodies that identify similar epitopes on closely related proteins.117,118 A total of 15 latex allergens, known as Hev b 1 to Hev b 15, have been discovered, with LFS connected to four of these allergens (Hev b 2, Hev b 6.02, Hev b 7, Hev b 8, and Hev b 11).7,119

Seafood and Shellfish Allergy

Various allergens, which are stable, water–soluble proteins, have been found in seafood, including fish and shellfish, with most of them residing in the consumable part of these creatures.120

Fish Allergy

Fish belong to the Chordata phylum.121 Various components of fish, such as muscle, skin, bones, roe, milt, and blood, have been found to contain allergens. The most prevalent among fish allergens are parvalbumins, which are resistant to both heat and enzymatic digestion (Table 7). Parvalbumin is a small protein found in the muscles of various species of fish, including cod (Gad c 1), salmon (Sal s 1), carp (Cyp c 1), tuna (Thu a 1), swordfish (Xip g 1), and pilchard (Sar s 1). Remarkably, it is associated with nearly 70% of allergic reactions induced by fish. Given their significant similarity, an individual sensitized to the parvalbumin of one type of fish might also react to the parvalbumins present in other fish species.5 Other less prevalent fish allergens include aldolase α- and β-enolase (found in the muscles of cod (Gad m 2, Gad m 3), salmon (Sal s 2, Sal s 3), and tuna (Thu a 2, Thu a 3), fish gelatin (collagen), and vitellogenins.2

Table 7: Seafood molecular allergens available for CRD
Seafood source Allergen name Biochemical name Features
Carp rCyp c 1 Parvalbumin Major allergen
Specific IgE are suggestive of true fish allergy
Cod rGad c 1 Parvalbumin Major allergen
Specific IgE are suggestive of true fish allergy
Shrimp rPen a 1 Tropomyosin Major allergen
Specific IgE are suggestive of true crustaceans allergy
Cross-reacts with tropomyosin of mites
nPen m 2* Arginine kinase Minor allergen
nPen m 4* Calcium binding protein Minor allergen
*Available only for semiquantitative methods


The phylum Arthropoda encompasses crustaceans such as crabs, lobsters, crayfish, and prawns. The Penaeidae family includes species such as the giant freshwater prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii), the king prawn (Melicertus latisulcatus), the Indian prawn (Penaeus indicus), the Gulf brown shrimp (Penaeus aztecus), the northern shrimp (Pandalus borealis), and the giant tiger prawn (Penaeus monodon).121,122 The most allergen-sensitive components are located in the cephalothorax, muscle tissue, and ova, which play crucial roles in locomotion and energy metabolism.122 The predominant allergenic proteins found in various prawn species include tropomyosin (e.g., Pen a 1, Pen m 1, Pen i 1, Mac r 1, and Mel l 1), arginine kinase (e.g., Pen m 2), troponin C (e.g., Pen m 6), light chain 2 of myosin (e.g., Pen m 3), and calcium-binding proteins (e.g., Pen m 4) (Table 7).2,122 Tropomyosin, an allergen commonly found in all crustaceans, has been extensively studied. This allergen belongs to a family of structural proteins that maintain stability under high temperatures and facilitate muscle contraction. There is considerable homology in the amino acid sequences not only among different crustacean species but also among crustaceans, mollusks, mites, and other invertebrates.123 Tropomyosin is considered a primary allergen in prawns and crabs. It is indicative of a food allergy, as 72–98% of individuals with a prawn allergy have IgE specifically targeted against tropomyosin. Tropomyosin sensitization increases the likelihood of an allergic reaction to an OFC in individuals with potential shellfish allergy.124

This allergen is also thought to be a part of how dust mites and shellfish can cause reactions in people who are allergic to both. As the dust tropomyosin Der p 10 is a weak allergen of D. Pteronyssinus, up to 90% of people who are allergic to prawns also have sIgE for mites.123 In a patient suspected of having a seafood allergy, the investigative approach always involves a comprehensive evaluation of the patient’s medical history and in vivo diagnostic testing. This involves assessing the patient’s tolerance to crustaceans/mollusks and fish, identifying any concurrent respiratory allergies, particularly asthma, and determining sIgE for both the implicated allergens and cross-reactive allergens, as well as any available molecular components.2

Meat Allergy

Allergies to mammalian meat are infrequently examined as they primarily affect young atopic infants, triggering rapid allergic responses following exposure.125,126 Recently, novel meat allergy entities causing delayed reactions have been recognized, primarily in adult populations.125,127 Bovine species possess a significant number of food allergens, with nine allergenic proteins identified thus far.125 However, as most reported beef reactions have been observed in children allergic to CM,128 many of these allergens were initially identified as CM allergens.125 Research indicates that approximately 10% of CM-allergic children manifest clinical reactions upon consumption of beef.129 Although BSA (Bos d 6) and IgG (Bos d 7) are significant beef allergens, BSA seems to be more relevant in these reactions.125,130 Thus, in the diagnostic process for CM-allergic children, investigation of sIgE to Bos d 6 may assist in identifying those at risk for beef-induced reactions. Another meat allergy phenomenon is termed “cat–pork syndrome,”131 where sensitization to domestic furred animals (commonly cats) can lead to IgE-mediated hypersensitivity reactions upon pork consumption.125 Cross-reactive serum albumins (66–69 kDa) from animals, such as Fel d 2 in cats and the porcine meat allergen Sus s 6,132 can account for this reaction. Fel d 2, a 67-kDa serum albumin, is a minor cat allergen, sensitizing only about 15–35% of cat-allergic individuals.132 Considering that approximately 30% of individuals sensitized to Sus s 6 experienced allergic symptoms after eating pork, only 1–3% of cat-allergic patients seem to be at risk for a pork meat allergy.132 Recently, a delayed allergic reaction post-consumption of mammalian meat has been documented. This form of IgE-mediated allergy is attributed to a novel relevant carbohydrate allergen, galactose-α-1,3-galactose (α-gal), triggered by tick bites.129 The identification of α-gal was based on the observation of individuals experiencing acute anaphylaxis following their first exposure to the monoclonal antibody cetuximab.133 Investigation into cetuximab-sIgE antibodies unveiled that these antibodies specifically targeted oligosaccharide residues on the heavy chain, with α-gal being the primary epitope.134 Also, α-gal, a non-primate mammalian glycan bearing resemblance to B-group blood antigen, is present in all forms of mammalian tissues and products such as red meat, kidney, gelatin, milk, cheese, and gelatin-based vaccinations.123,124 Specific IgE to α-gal has been associated with delayed angioedema, urticaria, and anaphylaxis post-red meat consumption.135,136 Any products containing α-gal could potentially trigger reactions in susceptible individuals, as recently evidenced by a case of anaphylaxis following the administration of a gelatin-containing vaccine in a sensitized pediatric patient.137 The diagnosis of this allergy can be challenging due to the common 3–6-hour delay between mammalian meat consumption and symptom onset. Most individuals develop this allergy after years of uneventful beef or pork consumption.126,136 Recent studies suggest individuals with B-group blood antigens are less likely to develop α-gal sensitivity.138 The immunological mechanism underlying sensitization and delayed symptoms remains largely unknown, with tick bites being the only recognized sensitization pathway.125 The implicated tick species include Amblyomma americanum (USA), Ixodes holocyclus (Australia), and Ixodes ricinus (Europe).125 Data supporting the role of tick bites in α-gal sensitization process is heterogeneous; there is epidemiologic evidence demonstrating increased sIgE to α-gal following confirmed tick bites, and geographical correlation exists between areas with high prevalence of tick bites and the global distribution of delayed anaphylactic reactions to red meat.139 Specifically, Hamsten et al. illustrated that α-gal is present in the gastrointestinal tract of I. ricinus, potentially leading to exposure to α-gal during a tick bite.140142 In conclusion, the development of sIgE to α-gal represents a new cause of food allergy and anaphylaxis subsequent to meat consumption, predominantly occurring in adults but also reported in children. It is characterized by a delayed onset of symptoms, a diet devoid of red meat, and a history of tick bites.126,136 Future research should consider the potential of IgE-mediated allergy to α-gal in instances of urticaria, angioedema, or anaphylaxis occurring 3–6 hours following red meat consumption (Table 8).

Table 8: Diagnosis of meat allergic reactions111
Type of meat allergy History IgE Major allergen
Primary meat sensitivity in childhood Immediate reactions to meat
Often with pre-existing sensitivity to CM
Relevant meat
Bos d 6
Pork–cat syndrome Reactions to pork within 1 hour
In some cases with additional reactions to beef
In most cases pre-existing sensitization to cats
Fel d 7Sus s 6
Delayed anaphylaxis to red meat or the α-gal syndrome Urticaria and/or anaphylaxis occurring 3–6 hours after eating beef Beef


Component-resolved diagnostics represents a pivotal advance in the field of food allergy diagnosis, facilitating a more precise identification and characterization of specific molecules eliciting allergic reactions. As a consequence, CRD has evolved into an indispensable tool within the diagnostic framework of food allergies, since the detection of sIgE against primary allergens assists in differentiating between primary and secondary sensitization. Furthermore, CRD contributes to prognosticating the trajectory of the allergic process, determining each patient’s clinical risk, and stratifying the outcome of the OFC. Nonetheless, significant gaps persist in both research and clinical practice. First, commercially available diagnostic tests exist only for a limited number of major allergens. Second, in comparison to first and second-level diagnostic tests (SPT and allergen extract-based sIgE), CRD constitutes a substantially costlier assay. Third, CRD has yet to exhibit adequate specificity and sensitivity to supplant the OFC as the diagnostic gold standard for identified allergens in food allergy. To address these deficiencies, additional research, and future endeavors are warranted.


Shambo S Samajdar https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9199-0905


1. Canonica GW, Ansotegui IJ, Pawankar R, et al. WAO-ARIA-GA2LEN consensus document on molecular-based allergy diagnostics. World Allergy Organ J 2013;6(1):1–17. DOI: 10.1186/1939-4551-6-17.

2. Matricardi PM, Kleine–Tebbe J, Hoffmann HJ, et al. EAACI molecular allergology user’s guide. Pediatr Allergy Immunol 2016;27(Suppl. 23):1–250. DOI: 10.1111/pai.12563.

3. Borres MP, Maruyama N, Sato S, et al. Recent advances in component resolved diagnosis in food allergy. Allergol Int 2016;65:378–387. DOI: 10.1016/j.alit.2016.07.002.

4. Treudler R, Simon JC. Overview of component resolved diagnostics. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep 2013;13:110–117. DOI: 10.1007/s11882-012-0318-8.

5. Muraro A, Werfel T, Hoffmann–Sommergruber K, et al. EAACI food allergy and anaphylaxis guidelines: Diagnosis and management of food allergy. Allergy 2014;69(8):1008–1025. DOI: 10.1111/all.12429.

6. Marsh DG, Goodfriend L, King TP, et al. Allergen nomenclature. Bull World Health Organ 1986;64(5):767–774. PMID: 3492310.

7. Allergen.org. Allergen nomenclature. Available at: http://allergen.org/index.php. Accessed on: 31 July 2019.

8. Fiocchi A, Dahdah L, Albarini M, et al. Cow’s milk allergy in children and adults. Chem Immunol Allergy 2015;101:114–123. DOI: 10.1159/000375415.

9. Martorell–Aragonés A, Echeverría–Zudaire L, Alonso–Lebrero E, et al. Food allergy committee of SEICAP. Position document: IgE-mediated cow’s milk allergy. Allergol Immunopathol 2015;43:507–526. DOI: 10.1016/j.aller.2015.01.003.

10. Restani P, Ballabio C, Tripodi S, et al. Meat allergy. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol 2009;9(3):265–269. DOI: 10.1097/ACI.0b013e32832aef3d.

11. Ahrens B, Lopes de Oliveira LC, Grabenhenrich L, et al. Individual cow’s milk allergens as prognostic markers for tolerance development? Clin Exp Allergy 2012;42(11):1630–1637. DOI: 10.1111/cea.12001.

12. Savilahti EM, Rantanen V, Lin JS, et al. Early recovery from cow’s milk allergy is associated with decreasing IgE and increasing IgG4 binding to cow’s milk epitopes. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2010;125(6):1315–1321. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2010.03.025.

13. James JM, Sampson HA. Immunologic changes associated with the development of tolerance in children with cow milk allergy. J Pediatr 1992;121(3):371–377. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3476(05)81788-3.

14. Agyemang A, Saf S, Sifers T, et al. Utilizing boiled milk sIgE as a predictor of baked milk tolerance in cow’s milk allergic children. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 2019;7(6):2049–2051. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaip.2019.01.034.

15. Lorenz AR, Scheurer S, Vieths S. Food allergens: Molecular and immunological aspects, allergen databases and cross-reactivity. Chem Immunol Allergy 2015;101:18–29. DOI: 10.1159/000371647. Epub 2015 May 21. PMID: 26022861.

16. Bloom KA, Huang FR, Bencharitiwong R, et al. Effect of heat treatment on milk and egg proteins allergenicity. Pediatr Allergy Immunol 2014;25(8):740–746. DOI: 10.1111/pai.12283.

17. Caubet JC, Nowak–Wegrzyn A, Moshier E, et al. Utility of casein-specific IgE levels in predicting reactivity to baked milk. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2013;131(1):222–224. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2012.06.049.

18. Ford LS, Bloom KA, Nowak–Wegrzyn AH, et al. Basophil reactivity, wheal size, and immunoglobulin levels distinguish degrees of cow’s milk tolerance. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2013;131(1):180–186. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2012.06.003.

19. Sampson HA, Aceves S, Bock SA, et al. Food allergy: A practice parameter update—2014. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2014;134(5):1016–1025. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2014.05.013.

20. Lambert R, Grimshaw KEC, Ellis B, et al. Evidence that eating baked egg or milk influences egg or milk allergy resolution: A systematic review. Clin Exp Allergy 2017;47(6):829–837. DOI: 10.1111/cea.12940.

21. Savilahti EM, Kuitunen M, Valori M, et al. Use of IgE and IgG4 epitope binding to predict the outcome of oral immunotherapy in cow’s milk allergy. Pediatr Allergy Immunol 2014;25(3):227–235. DOI: 10.1111/pai.12186.

22. Martinez–Botas J, Rodriguez–Alvarez M, Cerecedo I, et al. Identification of novel peptide biomarkers to predict safety and efficacy of cow’s milk oral immunotherapy by peptide microarray. Clin Exp Allergy 2015;45(6):1071–1084. DOI: 10.1111/cea.12528.

23. Savage J, Sicherer S, Wood R. The natural history of food allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 2016;4(2):196–203. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaip.2015.11.024.

24. Wood RA, Sicherer SH, Vickery BP, et al. The natural history of milk allergy in an observational cohort. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2013;131:80–812. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2012.10.060.

25. Bartuzi Z, Cocco RR, Muraro A, et al. Contribution of molecular allergen analysis in diagnosis of milk allergy. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep 2017;17(7):46. DOI: 10.1007/s11882-017-0716-z.

26. Hasan SA, Wells RD, Davis CM. Egg hypersensitivity in review. Allergy Asthma Proc 2013;34(1):26–32. DOI: 10.2500/aap.2013.34.3621.

27. Mine Y, Yang M. Recent advances in the understanding of egg allergens: Basic, industrial, and clinical perspectives. J Agric Food Chem 2008;56(13):4874–4900. DOI: 10.1021/jf8001153.

28. Benhamou AH, Caubet JC, Eigenmann PA, et al. State of the art and new horizons in the diagnosis and management of egg allergy. Allergy 2010;65(3):283–289. DOI: 10.1111/j.1398-9995.2009.02251.x.

29. Calvani M, Arasi S, Bianchi A, et al. Is it possible to make a diagnosis of raw, heated, and baked egg allergy in children using cutoffs? A systematic review. Pediatr Allergy Immunol 2015;26(6):509–521. DOI: 10.1111/pai.12432.

30. Benhamou AH, Zamora SA, Eigenmann PA. Correlation between specific immunoglobulin E levels and the severity of reactions in egg allergic patients. Pediatr Allergy Immunol 2008;19(2):173–179. DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-3038.2007.00602.x.

31. Ando H, Moverare R, Kondo Y, et al. Utility of ovomucoid-specific IgE concentrations in predicting symptomatic egg allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2008;122(3):583–588. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2008.06.016.

32. Saifi M, Swamy N, Crain M, et al. Tolerance of a high-protein baked-egg product in egg-allergic children. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2016;116(5):415–419. DOI: 10.1016/j.anai.2015.12.012.

33. Sopo SM, Greco M, Cuomo B, et al. Matrix effect on baked egg tolerance in children with IgE-mediated hen’s egg allergy. Pediatr Allergy Immunol 2016;27(5):465–470. DOI: 10.1111/pai.12570.

34. Alessandri C, Zennaro D, Scala E, et al. Ovomucoid (Gal d 1) specific IgE detected by microarray system predict tolerability to boiled hen’s egg and an increased risk to progress to multiple environmental allergen sensitisation. Clin Exp Allergy 2012;42(3):441–450. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2222.2011.03915.x.

35. Bartnikas LM, Sheehan WJ, Tuttle KL, et al. Ovomucoid specific immunoglobulin E as a predictor of tolerance to cooked egg. Allergy Rhinol Provid 2015;6(3):198–204. DOI: 10.2500/ar.2015.6.0135.

36. Senouf AHB, Borres MP, Eigenmann PA. Native and denatured egg white protein IgE tests discriminate hen’s egg allergic from egg–tolerant children. Pediatr Allergy Immunol 2015;26(1):12–17. DOI: 10.1111/pai.12317.

37. Chokshi NY, Sicherer SH. Molecular diagnosis of egg allergy: An update. Expert Rev Mol Diagn 2015;15(7):895–906. DOI: 10.1586/14737159.2015.1041927.

38. Vazquez–Ortiz M, Pascal M, Jiménez–Feijoo R, et al. Ovalbumin-specific IgE/IgG4 ratio might improve the prediction of cooked and uncooked egg tolerance development in egg-allergic children. Clin Exp Allergy 2014;44(4):579–588. DOI: 10.1111/cea.12273.

39. Upton J, Nowak–Wegrzyn A. The impact of baked egg and baked milk diets on IgE- and non-IgE-mediated allergy. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol 2018;55(2):118–138. DOI: 10.1007/s12016-018-8669-0.

40. Leonard SA, Nowak–Węgrzyn AH. Baked milk and egg diets for milk and egg allergy management. Immunol Allergy Clin N Am 2016;36(1):147–159. DOI: 10.1016/j.iac.2015.08.013.

41. Holzhauser T, Wackermann O, Ballmer–Weber BK, et al. Soybean (Glycine max) allergy in Europe: Gly m 5 (beta-conglycinin) and Gly m 6 (glycinin) are potential diagnostic markers for severe allergic reactions to soy. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2009;123(2):452–458. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2008.09.034.

42. Ebisawa M, Brostedt P, Sjölander S, et al. Gly m 2S albumin is a major allergen with a high diagnostic value in soybean-allergic children. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2013;132(4):976e1-5–978e1-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2013.04.028.

43. Kattan JD, Sampson HA. Clinical reactivity to soy is best identified by component testing to Gly m 8. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 2015;3(6):970–972. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaip.2015.06.002.

44. Mittag D, Vieths S, Vogel L, et al. Soybean allergy in patients allergic to birch pollen: Clinical investigation and molecular characterization of allergens. J. Allergy Clin Immunol 2004;113(1):148–154. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2003.09.030.

45. Kosma P, Sjölander S, Landgren E, et al. Severe reactions after the intake of soy drink in birch pollen–allergic children sensitized to Gly m 4. Acta Paediatr 2011;100(2):305–306. DOI: 10.1111/j.1651-2227.2010.02049.x.

46. Mastrorilli C, Tripodi S, Caffarelli C, et al. Endotypes of pollen–food syndrome in children with seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: A molecular classification. Allergy Eur J Allergy Clin Immunol 2016;71(8):1181–1191. DOI: 10.1111/all.12888.

47. Stiefel G, Anagnostou K, Boyle RJ, et al. BSACI guideline for the diagnosis and management of peanut and tree nut allergy. Clin Exp Allergy 2017;47(6):719–739. DOI: 10.1111/cea.12957.

48. Sicherer SH, Furlong TJ, Muñoz–Furlong A, et al. A voluntary registry for peanut and tree nut allergy: Characteristics of the first 5149 registrants. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2001;108(1):128–132. DOI: 10.1067/mai.2001.115755.

49. Rona RJ, Keil T, Summers C, et al. The prevalence of food allergy: A meta-analysis. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2007;120(3):638–646. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2007.05.026.

50. Grabenhenrich LB, Dölle S, Moneret–Vautrin A, et al. Anaphylaxis in children and adolescents: The European Anaphylaxis Registry. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2016;137(4):1128–1137. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2015.11.015.

51. Turner PJ, Gowland MH, Sharma V, et al. Increase in anaphylaxis-related hospitalizations but no increase in fatalities: An analysis of United Kingdom national anaphylaxis data, 1992–2012. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2015;135(4):956.e1–963.e1. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2014.10.021.

52. González–Pérez A, Aponte Z, Vidaurre CF, et al. Anaphylaxis epidemiology in patients with and patients without asthma: A United Kingdom database review. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2010;125(5):1098–1104. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2010.02.009.

53. Beyer K, Grabenhenrich L, Härtl M, et al. Predictive values of component-specific IgE for the outcome of peanut and hazelnut food challenges in children. Allergy Eur J Allergy Clin Immunol 2015;70(1):90–98. DOI: 10.1111/all.12530.

54. Asarnoj A, Nilsson C, Lidholm J, et al. Peanut component Ara h 8 sensitization and tolerance to peanut. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2012;130(2):468–472. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2012.05.019.

55. Krause S, Reese G, Randow S, et al. Lipid transfer protein (Ara h 9) as a new peanut allergen relevant for a Mediterranean allergic population. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2009;124(4):771.e5–778.e5. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2009.06.008.

56. Masthoff LJN, Mattsson L, Zuidmeer–Jongejan L, et al. Sensitization to Cor a 9 and Cor a 14 is highly specific for a hazelnut allergy with objective symptoms in Dutch children and adults. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2013;132(2):393–399. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2013.02.024.

57. Masthoff LJN, Blom WM, Rubingh CM, et al. Sensitization to Cor a 9 or Cor a 14 has a strong impact on the distribution of thresholds to hazelnut. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 2018;6(6):2112.e1–2114.e1. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaip.2018.04.040.

58. Beck SC, Huissoon AP, Baretto RL, et al. A critical analysis of the utility of component tests in the diagnosis of pollen-related peanut and hazelnut allergy in the context of the BSACI guideline. Clin Exp Allergy 2017;47(9):1223–1224. DOI: 10.1111/cea.12991.

59. Hansen KS, Ballmer–Weber BK, Sastre J, et al. Component-resolved in vitro diagnosis of hazelnut allergy in Europe. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2009;123(5):1134–1141. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2009.02.005.

60. Costa J, Carrapatoso I, Oliveira MBPP, et al. Walnut allergens: Molecular characterization, detection and clinical relevance. Clin Exp Allergy 2014;44(3):319–341. DOI: 10.1111/cea.12267.

61. van der Valk JPM, van Wijk RG, Vergouwe Y, et al. sIgE Ana o 1, 2 and 3 accurately distinguish tolerant from allergic children sensitized to cashew nuts. Clin Exp Allergy 2017;47(1):113–120. DOI: 10.1111/cea.12794.

62. Adatia A, Clarke AE, Yanishevsky Y, et al. Sesame allergy: Current perspectives. J Asthma Allergy 2017;10:141–151. DOI: 10.2147/JAA.S113612.

63. Maruyama N, Nakagawa T, Ito K, et al. Measurement of specific IgE antibodies to Ses i 1 improves the diagnosis of sesame allergy. Clin Exp Allergy 2016;46(1):163–171. DOI: 10.1111/cea.12626.

64. Uotila R, Kukkonen AK, Westerhout WM, et al. Component-resolved diagnostics demonstrates that most peanut-allergic individuals could potentially introduce tree nuts to their diet. Clin Exp Allergy 2018;48(6):712–721. DOI: 10.1111/cea.13101.

65. Kim JF, McCleary N, Nwaru BI, et al. Diagnostic accuracy, risk assessment, and cost-effectiveness of component-resolved diagnostics for food allergy: A systematic review. Allergy 2018;73(8):1609–1621. DOI: 10.1111/all.13399.

66. Nwaru BI, Hickstein L, Panesar SS, et al. EAACI food allergy and anaphylaxis guidelines group prevalence of common food allergies in Europe: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Allergy 2014;69(8):992–1007. DOI: 10.1111/all.12423.

67. Eigenmann PA, Lack G, Mazon A, et al. Managing nut allergy: A remaining clinical challenge. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 2017;5(2):296–300. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaip.2016.08.014.

68. Eigenmann PA. Do we still need oral food challenges for the diagnosis of food allergy? Pediatr Allergy Immunol 2018;29(3):239–242. DOI: 10.1111/pai.12845.

69. Sapone A, Bai JC, Ciacci C, et al. Spectrum of gluten-related disorders: Consensus on new nomenclature and classification. BMC Med 2012;10:13. DOI: 10.1186/1741-7015-10-13.

70. Ostblom E, Lilja G, Ahlstedt S, et al. Patterns of quantitative food-specific IgE-antibodies and reported food hypersensitivity in 4-year-old children. Allergy 2008;63(4):418–424. DOI: 10.1111/j.1398-9995.2007.01575.x.

71. Matricardi PM, Bockelbrink A, Beyer K, et al. Primary versus secondary immunoglobulin E sensitization to soy and wheat in the multi-centre allergy study cohort. Clin Exp Allergy 2008;38(3):493–500. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2222.2007.02912.x.

72. Dondi A, Tripodi S, Panetta V, et al. Pollen-induced allergic rhinitis in 1360 Italian children: Comorbidities and determinants of severity. Pediatr Allergy Immunol 2013;24(8):742–751. DOI: 10.1111/pai.12136.

73. Inomata N. Wheat allergy. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol 2009;9(3):238–243. DOI: 10.1097/ACI.0b013e32832aa5bc.

74. Bock SA. Prospective appraisal of complaints of adverse reactions to foods in children during the first 3 years of life. Pediatrics 1987;79(5):683–688. PMID: 3575022

75. Bock SA, Sampson HA. Food allergy in infancy. Pediatr Clin N Am 1994;41(5):1047–1067. DOI: 10.1016/S0031-3955(16)38845-9.

76. Jansen JJ, Kardinaal AF, Huijbers G, et al. Prevalence of food allergy and intolerance in the adult Dutch population. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1994;93(2):446–456. DOI: 10.1016/0091-6749(94)90353-0.

77. Sampson HA. Food allergy. Part 1: Immunopathogenesis and clinical disorders. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1999;103(5 Pt 1):717–728. DOI: 10.1016/S0091-6749(99)70411-2.

78. Baur X, Degens PO, Sander I. Baker’s asthma: Still among the most frequent occupational respiratory disorders. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1998;102(6 Pt 1):984–997. DOI: 10.1016/S0091-6749(98)70337-9.

79. Ameille J, Pauli G, Calastreng–Crinquand A, et al. Reported incidence of occupational asthma in France, 1996–1999: The ONAP programme. Observatoire National des Asthmes Professionnels. Occup Environ Med 2003;60(2):136–141. DOI: 10.1136/oem.60.2.136.

80. Leira HL, Bratt U, Slåstad S. Notified cases of occupational asthma in Norway: Exposure and consequences for health and income. Am J Ind Med 2005;48(5):359–364. DOI: 10.1002/ajim.20213.

81. Malo JL, Chan–Yeung M. Agents causing occupational asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2009;123(3):545–550. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2008.09.010.

82. Morita E, Kunie K, Matsuo H. Food-dependent exercise-induced anaphylaxis. J Dermatol Sci 2007;47(2):109–117. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdermsci.2007.03.004.

83. Juhász A, Belova T, Florides CG, et al. Genome mapping of seed-borne allergens and immunoresponsive proteins in wheat. Sci Adv 2018;4(8):eaar8602. DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aar8602.

84. Battais F, Richard C, Jacquenet S, et al. Wheat grain allergies: An update on wheat allergens. Eur Ann Allergy Clin Immunol 2008;40(3):67–76. PMID: 19334370.

85. Palosuo K, Varjonen E, Kekki OM, et al. Wheat omega-5 gliadin is a major allergen in children with immediate allergy to ingested wheat. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2001;108(4):634–638. DOI: 10.1067/mai.2001.118602.

86. Baar A, Pahr S, Constantin C, et al. Molecular and immunological characterization of Tri a 36, a low molecular weight glutenin, as a novel major wheat food allergen. J Immunol 2012;189(6):3018–3025. DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.1200438.

87. Fernandez–Rivas M. Fruit and vegetable allergy. Chem Immunol Allergy 2015;101:162–170. DOI: 10.1159/000375469.

88. Ballmer–Weber BK, Hoffmann–Sommergruber K. Molecular diagnosis of fruit and vegetable allergy. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol 2011;11(3):229–235. DOI: 10.1097/ACI.0b013e3283464c74.

89. Price A, Ramachandran S, Smith GP, et al. Oral allergy syndrome (pollen–food allergy syndrome) Dermatitis 2015;26(2):78–88. DOI: 10.1097/DER.0000000000000087.

90. Kohn JB. What is oral allergy syndrome? J Acad Nutr Diet 2017;117(6):988. DOI: 10.1016/j.jand.2017.03.021.

91. Pauli G, Metz–Favre C. Cross-reactions between pollens and vegetable food allergens. Rev Mal Respir 2013;30(4):328–337. DOI: 10.1016/j.rmr.2012.10.633.

92. Zuidmeer L, Goldhahn K, Rona RJ, et al. The prevalence of plant–food allergies: A systematic review. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2008;121(5):1210–1218. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2008.02.019.

93. Burney P, Summers C, Chinn S, et al. Prevalence and distribution of sensitization to foods in the European Community Respiratory Health Survey: A EuroPrevall analysis. Allergy 2010;65(9):1182–1188. DOI: 10.1111/j.1398-9995.2010.02346.x.

94. Muluk NB, Cingi C. Oral allergy syndrome. Am J Rhinol Allergy 2018;32(1):27–30. DOI: 10.2500/ajra.2018.32.4489.

95. Bassler OY, Weiss J, Wienkoop S, et al. Evidence for novel tomato seed allergens: IgE-reactive legumin and vicilin proteins identified by multidimensional protein fractionation mass spectrometry and in silico epitope modeling. J Proteome Res 2009;8(3):1111–1122. DOI: 10.1021/pr800186d.

96. Yagami A, Ebisawa M. New findings, pathophysiology, and antigen analysis in pollen–food allergy syndrome. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol 2019;19(3):218–223. DOI: 10.1097/ACI.0000000000000533.

97. Andersen MBS, 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(1):4–19. DOI: 10.1007/s12016-009-8177-3.

98. Bublin M, Lauer I, Oberhuber C, et al. Production and characterization of an allergen panel for component-resolved diagnosis of celery allergy. Mol Nutr Food Res 2008;52(Suppl. 2):S241–S250. DOI: 10.1002/mnfr.200700270.

99. Hoffmann–Sommergruber K. Pathogenesis-related (PR)-proteins identified as allergens. Biochem Soc Trans 2002;30(Pt 6):930–935. DOI: 10.1042/bst0300930.

100. Van Winkle RC, Chang C. The biochemical basis and clinical evidence of food allergy due to lipid transfer proteins: A comprehensive review. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol 2014;46(3):211–224. DOI: 10.1007/s12016-012-8338-7.

101. Egger M, Hauser M, Mari A, et al. The role of lipid transfer proteins in allergic diseases. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep 2010;10(5):326–335. DOI: 10.1007/s11882-010-0128-9.

102. Asero R, Pravettoni V. Anaphylaxis to plant–foods and pollen allergens in patients with lipid transfer protein syndrome. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol 2013;13(4):379–385. DOI: 10.1097/ACI.0b013e32835f5b07.

103. Gadermaier G, Hauser M, Egger M, et al. Sensitization prevalence, antibody cross-reactivity and immunogenic peptide profile of Api g 2, the non-specific lipid transfer protein 1 of celery. PLoS One 2011;6(8):e24150. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0024150.

104. Vejvar E, Himly M, Briza P, et al. Allergenic relevance of nonspecific lipid transfer proteins 2: Identification and characterization of Api g 6 from celery tuber as representative of a novel IgE binding protein family. Mol Nutr Food Res 2013;57(11):2061–2070. DOI: 10.1002/mnfr.201300085.

105. Basagaña M, Elduque C, Teniente–Serra A, et al. Clinical profile of lipid transfer protein syndrome in a Mediterranean area. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol 2018;28(1):58–60. DOI: 10.18176/jiaci.0209.

106. Rial MJ, Sastre JD. Food allergies caused by allergenic lipid transfer proteins: What is behind the geographic restriction? Curr Allergy Asthma Rep 2018;18(11):56. DOI: 10.1007/s11882-018-0810-x.

107. Radauer C, Breiteneder H. Evolutionary biology of plant–food allergens. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2007;120(3):518–525. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2007.07.024.

108. Santos A, Ree VR. Profilins: Mimickers of allergy or relevant allergens? Int Arch Allergy Immunol 2011;155(3):191–204. DOI: 10.1159/000321178.

109. Asero R, Tripodi S, Dondi A, et al. Prevalence and clinical relevance of IgE sensitization to profilin in childhood: A multicenter study. Int Arch Allergy Immunol 2015;168(1):25–31. DOI: 10.1159/000441222.

110. de Jesus–Pires C, Ferreira–Neto JRC, Bezerra–Neto JP, et al. Plant thaumatin-like proteins: Function, evolution and biotechnological applications. Curr Protein Pept Sci 2020;21(1):36–51. DOI: 10.2174/1389203720666190318164905.

111. Gonzalez–Mancebo E, Gonzalez-de-Olano D, Trujillo MJ, et al. Prevalence of sensitization to lipid transfer proteins and profilins in a population of 430 patients in the south of Madrid J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol 2011;21(4):278–282. PMID: 21721373.

112. Asero R, Piantanida M, Pinter E, et al. The clinical relevance of lipid transfer protein. Clin Exp Allergy 2018;48(1):6–12. DOI: 10.1111/cea.13053.

113. Mota I, Gaspar Â, Benito–Garcia F, et al. Anaphylaxis caused by lipid transfer proteins: An unpredictable clinical syndrome. Allergol Immunopathol (Madr) 2018;46(6):565–570. DOI: 10.1016/j.aller.2018.04.002.

114. García–Mozo H. Poaceae pollen as the leading aeroallergen worldwide: A review. Allergy 2017;72(12):1849–1858. DOI: 10.1111/all.13210.

115. Bublin M, Pfister M, Radauer C, et al. Component-resolved diagnosis of kiwifruit allergy with purified natural and recombinant kiwifruit allergens. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2011;125:687–694. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2009.10.017.

116. Bernardi ML, Giangrieco I, Camardella L, et al. Allergenic lipid transfer proteins from plant-derived foods do not immunologically and clinically behave homogeneously: The kiwifruit LTP as a model. PLoS One 2011;6(11):e27856. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0027856.

117. Blanco C. Latex–fruit syndrome. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep 2003;3(1):47–53. DOI: 10.1007/s11882-003-0012-y.

118. Wagner S, Breiteneder H. The latex–fruit syndrome. Biochem Soc Trans 2002;30(Pt 6):935–940. DOI: 10.1042/bst0300935.

119. Radauer C, Adhami F, Fürtler I, et al. Latex-allergic patients sensitized to the major allergen hevein and hevein-like domains of class I chitinases show no increased frequency of latex-associated plant–food allergy. Mol Immunol 2011;48(4):600–609. DOI: 10.1016/j.molimm.2010.10.019.

120. Sharp MF, Lopata AL. Fish allergy: In review. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol 2014;46(3):258–271. DOI: 10.1007/s12016-013-8363-1.

121. The National Center for Biotechnology Information. The NCBI Taxonomy Database. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/taxonomy. Accessed on: 2 April 2019.

122. Ruethers T, Taki AC, Johnston EB, et al. Seafood allergy: A comprehensive review of fish and shellfish allergens. Mol Immunol 2018;100:28–57. DOI: 10.1016/j.molimm.2018.04.008.

123. Tong WS, Yuen AW, Wai CY, et al. Diagnosis of fish and shellfish allergies. J Asthma Allergy 2018;11:247–260. DOI: 10.2147/JAA.S142476.

124. Farioli L, Losappio LM, Giuffrida MG, et al. Mite-induced asthma and IgE levels to shrimp, mite, tropomyosin, arginine kinase and Der p 10 are the most relevant risk factors for challenge-proven shrimp allergy. Int Arch Allergy Immunol 2017;174(3–4):133–143. DOI: 10.1159/000481985.

125. Van Hage M, Biederman T, Platts–Mills TAE. Allergy to Mammalian Meat. In: EAACI Molecular Allergology User’s Guide. Volume B14. The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI); Zurich, Switzerland: 2016. pp. 193–198.

126. Wilson JM, Shuyler AJ, Workman L, et al. Investigation into the α-Gal syndrome: Characteristics of 261 children and adults reporting red meat allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 2019;7(7):2348.e4–2358.e4. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaip.2019.03.031.

127. Commins SP, James HR, Stevens W, et al. Delayed clinical and ex vivo response to mammalian meat in patients with IgE to galactose-alpha-1.3-galctose. J. Allergy Clin Immunol 2014;134(1):108–115. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2014.01.024.

128. Martelli A, De Chiara A, Corvo M, et al. Beef allergy in children with cow’s milk allergy; cow’s milk allergy in children with beef allergy. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2002;89(6 Suppl. 1):38–43. DOI: 10.1016/S1081-1206(10)62121-7.

129. Sicherer SH, Sampson HA. Food allergy: A review and uptodate on epidemiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis, prevention and management. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2018;141(1):41–58. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2017.11.003.

130. Fiocchi A, Brazek J, Schunermann HJ, et al. World Allergy Organization (WAO) diagnosis and rational for action against Cow’s milk allergy (DRACMA) guidelines. Pediatr Allergy Immunol 2010;21(Suppl. 21):1–125. DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-3038.2010.01068.x.

131. Posthumus J, James HR, Lane CJ, et al. Initial description of pork–cat syndrome in the United States. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2013;131(30:923–925. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2012.12.665.

132. Popescu F-D. Cross-reactivity between aeroallergens and food allergens. World J Methodol 2015;5(2):31–50. DOI: 10.5662/wjm.v5.i2.31.

133. Chung CH, Mirakhur B, Chan E, et al. Cetuximab-induced anaphylaxis and IgE specific for galactose-alpha-1,3-galactose. N Engl J Med 2008;358(11):1109–1117. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa074943.

134. Steinke JW, Platts–Mills TAE, et al. The alpha gal story: Lessons learned from connecting the dots. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2015;135(3):589–596. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2014.12.1947.

135. Commins SP, Satinover SM, Hosen J, et al. Delayed anaphylaxis, angioedema, or urticaria after consumption of red meat in patients with IgE antibodies specific for galactose-alpha-1,3-galactose. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2009;123(2):426–433. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2008.10.052.

136. Stewart PH, McMullan KL, LeBlanc SB. Delayed red meat allergy: Clinical ramifications of galactose-alpha-1,3-galactose sensitization. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2015;115(4):260–264. DOI: 10.1016/j.anai.2015.08.003.

137. Stone CA, Commins SP, Choudhary S, et al. Anaphylaxis after vaccination in a pediatric patient: Further implicating alpha-gal allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 2019;7(1):322.e2–324.e2. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaip.2018.06.005.

138. Brestoff JR, Tesfazghi MT, Zaydman MA, et al. The B antigen protects vagainst the development of red meat allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 2018;6(5):1790.e3–1791.e3. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaip.2018.02.010.

139. Commins SP, Jerath MR, Cox K, et al. Delayed anaphylaxis to alpha gal an oligosaccharide in mammalian meat. Allergol Int 2016;65(1):16–20. DOI: 10.1016/j.alit.2015.10.001.

140. Hamsten C, Starkhammar M, Tran TAT, et al. Identification of galactose-a-1,3-galactose in the gastrointestinal tract of the tick Ixodes ricinus; possible relationship with red meat allergy. Allergy 2013;68(4):549–552. DOI: 10.1111/all.12128.

141. Quan P, Sabaté–Brescó M, D’Amelio C, et al. Validation of a commercial allergen microarray platform for specific immunoglobulin E detection of respiratory and plant–food allergens. Ann Allergy, Asthma Immunol 2022;128(3):283.e4–290.e4. DOI: 10.1016/j.anai.2021.11.019.

142. Aberer W, Holzweber F, Hemmer W, et al. Inhibition of cross-reactive carbohydrate determinants (CCDs) enhances the selectivity of in vitro allergy diagnosis. Allergol Select 2017;1(2):141–149. DOI: 10.5414/ALX01638E.

© The Author(s). 2023 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and non-commercial reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.