Ana o 1 and Ana o 2 cashew allergens share cross-reactive CD4(+) T cell epitopes with other tree nuts.

BACKGROUND: Allergies to cashew are increasing in prevalence, with clinical symptoms ranging from oral pruritus to fatal anaphylactic reaction. Yet, cashew-specific T cell epitopes and T cell cross-reactivity amongst cashew and other tree nut allergens in humans remain uncharacterized. OBJECTIVES: In this study, we characterized cashew-specific T cell responses in cashew-allergic subjects and examined cross-reactivity of these cashew-specific cells towards other tree nut allergens. METHODS: CD154 up-regulation assay was used to determine immunodominance hierarchy among cashew major allergens at the T cell level. The phenotype, magnitude and functionality of cashew-specific T cells were determined by utilizing ex vivo staining with MHC class II tetramers. Dual tetramer staining and proliferation experiments were used to determine cross-reactivity to other tree nuts. RESULTS: CD4(+) T cell responses were directed towards cashew allergens Ana o 1 and Ana o 2. Multiple Ana o 1 and Ana o 2 T cell epitopes were then identified. These epitopes elicited either TH 2 or TH 2/TH 17 responses in allergic subjects, which were either cashew unique epitope or cross-reactive epitopes. For clones that recognized the cross-reactive epitope, T cell clones responded robustly to cashew, hazelnut and/or pistachio but not to walnut. CONCLUSIONS: Phylogenetically diverse tree nut allergens can activate cashew-reactive T cells and elicit a TH 2-type response at an epitope-specific level. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Lack of cross-reactivity between walnut and cashew suggests that cashew peptide immunotherapy approach may not be most effective for walnut.

Grass-specific CD4(+) T-cells exhibit varying degrees of cross-reactivity, implications for allergen-specific immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Conceptually, allergic responses may involve cross-reactivity by antibodies or T-cells. While IgE cross-reactivity among grass-pollen allergens has been observed, cross-reactivity at the allergen-specific T-cell level has been less documented. Identification of the patterns of cross-reactivity may improve our understanding, allowing optimization of better immunotherapy strategies. OBJECTIVES: We use Phleum pratense as model for the studying of cross-reactivity at the allergen-specific CD4(+) T cell level among DR04:01 restricted Pooideae grass-pollen T-cell epitopes. METHODS: After in vitro culture of blood mono-nucleated cells from grass-pollen-allergic subjects with specific Pooideae antigenic epitopes, dual tetramer staining with APC-labelled DR04:01/Phleum pratense tetramers and PE-labelled DR04:01/Pooideae grass homolog tetramers was assessed to identify cross-reactivity among allergen-specific DR04:01-restricted T-cells in six subjects. Direct ex vivo staining enabled the comparison of frequency and phenotype of different Pooideae grass-pollen reactive T-cells. Intracellular cytokine staining (ICS) assays were also used to examine phenotypes of these T-cells. RESULTS: T-cells with various degrees of cross-reactive profiles could be detected. Poa p 1 97-116 , Lol p 1 221-240 , Lol p 5a 199-218 , and Poa p 5a 199-218 were identified as minimally cross-reactive T-cell epitopes that do not show cross-reactivity to Phl p 1 and Phl p 5a epitopes. Ex vivo tetramer staining assays demonstrated T-cells that recognized these minimally cross-reactive T-cell epitopes are present in Grass-pollen-allergic subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that not all Pooideae grass epitopes with sequence homology are cross-reactive. Non-cross-reactive T-cells with comparable frequency, phenotype and functionality to Phl p-specific T-cells suggest that a multiple allergen system should be considered for immunotherapy instead of a mono-allergen system.