Cosmetics containing hydrolysed wheat proteins (HWP) can induce rare but severe allergic reactions. 9 patients, all females without common wheat allergy, but with contact urticaria to such cosmetics, were studied. 6 of them also experienced generalized urticaria or anaphylaxis to foods containing HWP. All patients had low to moderate levels of immunoglobulin (Ig)E specific of wheat flour (f4) or gluten (f79). Their sensitivity to HWP and their tolerance to unmodified wheat proteins extracted from grains were confirmed using skin tests. Immunoblotting analyses showed that IgE from all patients reacted with almost all HWP tested. Reactions generally occurred with large random peptide aggregates. IgE reacted also with unmodified grain proteins, which contrasted with skin tests results. They reacted always with salt soluble proteins but variably with gluten proteins. No reaction occurred with gliadins in patients without associated immediate hypersensitivity to food containing HWP. These results show the role of hydrolysis on the allergenicity of wheat proteins, both through skin or digestive routes. At least part of the epitopes involved is pre-existing in unmodified wheat proteins. The aggregation of peptide bearing these epitopes and others created by hydrolysis, along with the increased solubility and the route of exposure, are possible factors of the allergenicity of HWP.

No abstract

The IgE epitopes involved in IHHWP and WDEIA are different. This suggests that the protein state and the route of exposure to very similar gluten structures, probably orientate the pattern of epitope reactivity and the wheat food allergy manifestations.

Background: Adults suffering from wheat-dependant, exercise-induced anaphylaxis (WDEIA) develop IgE directed against wheat ω5-gliadins (major allergens for this allergy) and against wheat low-molecular weight glutenin subunits (LMW-GS). However, the ability of LMW-GS to trigger an inflammatory response is still unknown. It also remains to be determined if IgE from these patients bind the same epitopes on LMW-GS and ω5-gliadins or if the epitopes are independent. Methods: WDEIA patients were selected and skin prick tests (SPTs) were performed on them using commercial gluten, wheat flour extracts, prolamin fractions and a purified natural LMW-GS P42. The IgE-binding ability of natural and recombinant wheat prolamins was verified by immunoblot experiments. Cross-reactivity between LMW-GS and ω5-gliadins was studied by immunoblot inhibition experiments, using purified natural ω5-gliadin as an inhibitor. Results: Patients developed positive SPTs with natural LMW-GS fractions and/or with the purified LMW-GS P42. Natural and recombinant LMW-GS were highly reactive with patient IgE in immunoblot experiments, as was ω5-gliadin. However, differences in reactivity were evident within the LMW-GS group. Except for one recombinant LMW-GS (P73), IgE cross-reactivity between LMW-GS and natural ω5-gliadin was only partial. Conclusion: LMW-GS are able to promote local inflammation and they share common epitopes with ω5-gliadins. The nature of these epitopes is discussed. LMW-GS also carried specific epitopes, completely independent from the ω5-gliadin epitopes. Thus, LMW-GS behaved partly as independent allergens.

Background: Wheat is involved in different forms of respiratory, food and contact allergy. The IgE of patients generally reacts with various flour proteins. It is not known if antigenic relationships could explain some of these reactions and if proteins could be involved in different pathologies. Methods: Two sera were selected as representative of patients with either wheat-dependent exercise-induced anaphylaxis (WDEIA) or hypersensitivity to hydrolyzed wheat proteins (HHWP). Their IgE specificity was studied with wheat, barley and rye proteins, using immunoblot, and immunoblot inhibition with recombinant γ-3 hordein. This protein was chosen for its cross-reactivity with ω-5 gliadin, a major allergen in WDEIA. Results: The IgE from both sera strongly reacted with natural and recombinant γ-3 hordein but displayed different patterns of reactivity with wheat, barley and rye proteins. Those from the WDEIA patient showed expected reactions with ω-5 gliadin, γ-35 and γ-75 secalins, but also with wheat low-molecular-weight glutenin subunits (LMW-GS), and not with C hordeins. On the contrary, IgE from a HHWP patient reacted with C hordeins, various ω gliadins, and γ-75 secalin, but very weakly with γ-35 secalin and LMW-GS. Recombinant γ-3 hordein inhibited strongly but not totally the WDEIA patient’s IgE binding to prolamins. No such inhibition could be observed for the HHWP patient’s IgE. Conclusions: At least part of the reactions of prolamins with the IgE from the WDEIA patient was due to antigenic homologies. The occurrence of cross-reacting carbohydrates was unlikely. These common IgE epitopes were not involved in the pathology of the HHWP patient.