Peer Review History: PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process; therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. The editorial history of this article is available here:

<b><i>Background:</i></b> Although plant and fruit pollens are entomophilous and relevant in exposed workers, we have shown a high frequency of sensitisation and symptoms induction of peach tree pollen (PTP) and <i>Prunus persica</i> 9 (Pru p 9) in adults from areas of peach cultivars. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> We studied the sensitisation and clinical relevance of PTP and Pru p 9 in a large group of children and adolescents aged 3–19 years. A detailed questionnaire plus skin prick testing to prevalent allergens, PTP, and Pru p 9 were carried out. The clinical relevance was established by nasal provocation test (NPT) and symptom score index. <b><i>Results:</i></b> We evaluated 685 children (mean age 8.75 ± 3.3 years, median 9 years), 52% of them female. Sensitisation to PTP occurred in 20% of the cases following olive tree (33%) and <i>Phleum pratense</i> (26%). In a randomly selected subgroup of subjects sensitised to PTP, 30% were skin prick test-positive to Pru p 9. Most cases had rhinitis or rhinoconjunctivitis. NPT showed the relevance of PTP and Pru p 9 in the induction of symptoms. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> PTP and Pru p 9 are relevant in the induction of sensitisation and respiratory symptoms in children and adolescents. This allergen should be evaluated in children living in regions of peach tree cultivars.

ObjectivesSeveral studies have described peach tree (PT) as an occupational allergen. The aim of this work was to assess the effect of Prunus persica 9 (Pru p 9), a recently identified allergen from PT pollen, in exposed workers.MethodsThe study included people who reported respiratory symptoms after handling PT in orchards during the flowering period (Blanca village, Murcia region, south-east Spain). After completing a detailed questionnaire, participants underwent skin prick test (SPT) and nasal provocation test (NPT). The IgE response was analysed by SDS-PAGE and immunoblotting assays.ResultsA total of 21 cases were included (mean age 45 years; 57% women). Most were polysensitised to common pollens, although one person was sensitised only to PT pollen. All cases had a positive SPT to this pollen, and 43% also to Pru p 9. All participants reported having rhinitis, and six participants reported having also asthma. Immunoblotting showed a heterogeneous IgE pattern for several proteins, with Pru p 9 recognised in nine cases. Most participants sensitised to PT pollen and Pru p 9 had positive NPTs, while those who were not sensitised to Pru p 9 tested negative.ConclusionsWe demonstrate for the first time that Pru p 9, an allergen from PT pollen, can induce respiratory symptoms following occupational exposure. This must be considered a relevant allergen when people working with PT cultivars develop respiratory symptoms.

No abstract

Peach tree allergens are present in fruit, pollen, branches, and leaves, and can induce systemic, respiratory, cutaneous, and gastrointestinal symptoms. We studied the capacity of peach fruit/Pru p 1, Pru p 3, Pru p 4, Pru p 7 and peach pollen/Pru p 9 for inducing symptoms following oral or respiratory exposure in a large group of subjects. We included 716 adults (aged 21 to 83 y.o.) exposed to peach tree pollen and fruit intake in the study population. Participants completed a questionnaire and were skin tested with a panel of inhalant and food allergens, including peach tree pollen, Pru p 9 and peach fruit skin extract. Immunoglobulin E antibodies (SIgE) to Pru p 1, Pru p 3, Pru p 4 and Pru p 7 were quantified. Sensitised subjects underwent oral food challenge with peach fruit and nasal provocation test with peach tree pollen and Pru p 9. The prevalence of sensitisation to peach fruit was 5% and most of these had SIgE to Pru p 3, with a very low proportion to Pru p 4 SIgE and no SIgE to Pru p 1 and Pru p 7. In only 1.8%, anaphylaxis was the clinical entity induced. Cases with positive skin tests to peach and SIgE to Pru p 3 presented a good tolerance after oral challenge with peach fruit. The prevalence of skin sensitisation to peach tree pollen was 22%, with almost half recognising Pru p 9. This induced respiratory symptoms in those evaluated by nasal provocation. In a large population group exposed to peach fruit and peach tree pollen, most individuals were tolerant, even in those with SIgE to Pru p 3. A positive response to Pru p 9 was associated with respiratory allergy.