Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2008 Jan 9:6:1.
doi: 10.1186/1476-7961-6-1.

Usefulness of manufactured tomato extracts in the diagnosis of tomato sensitization: Comparison with the prick-prick method

Angel Ferrer  1 , Angel J Huertas, Carlos H Larramendi, Jose L García-Abujeta, Joan Bartra, Jose R Lavín, Carmen Andreu, Juan A Pagán, María A López-Matas, Enrique Fernández-Caldas, Jerónimo Carnés
Affiliations

Usefulness of manufactured tomato extracts in the diagnosis of tomato sensitization: Comparison with the prick-prick method

Angel Ferrer et al. Clin Mol Allergy. .

Abstract

Background: Commercial available skin prick test with fruits can be negative in sensitized or allergic patients due to a reduction in biological activity during the manufacturing process. Prick-prick tests with fresh foods are often preferred, but they are a non-standardized procedure. The usefulness of freeze-dried extracts of Canary Islands tomatoes, comparing the wheal sizes induced by prick test with the prick-prick method in the diagnosis of tomato sensitization has been analyzed.The objective of the study was to assess the potential diagnostic of freeze-dried extracts of Canary Islands tomatoes, comparing the wheal sizes induced by prick test with the prick-prick method.

Methods: Two groups of patients were analyzed: Group I: 26 individuals reporting clinical symptoms induced by tomato contact or ingestion. Group II: 71 control individuals with no symptoms induced by tomato: 12 of them were previously skin prick test positive to a tomato extract, 39 were atopic and 20 were non-atopic. All individuals underwent prick-prick with fresh ripe peel Canary tomatoes and skin prick tested with freeze-dried peel and pulp extracts obtained from peel and pulp of Canary tomatoes at 10 mg/ml. Wheal sizes and prick test positivity (>/= 7 mm2) were compared between groups.

Results: In group I, 21 (81%) out of 26 patients were prick-prick positive. Twenty patients (77%) had positive skin prick test to peel extracts and 12 (46%) to pulp extracts. Prick-prick induced a mean wheal size of 43.81 +/- 40.19 mm2 compared with 44.25 +/- 36.68 mm2 induced by the peel extract (Not significant), and 17.79 +/- 9.39 mm2 induced by the pulp extract (p < 0.01).In group II, 13 (18%) out of 71 control patients were prick-prick positive. Twelve patients (all of them previously positive to peel extract) had positive skin prick test to peel and 3 to pulp. Prick-prick induced a mean wheal size of 28.88 +/- 13.12 mm2 compared with 33.17 +/- 17.55 mm2 induced by peel extract (Not significant), and 13.33 +/- 4.80 mm2 induced by pulp extract (p < 0.05 with peel extract and prick-prick).

Conclusion: Canary peel tomato extract seems to be as efficient as prick-prick tests with ripe tomatoes to diagnose patients sensitized to tomato. The wheal sizes induced by prick-prick and peel extracts were very similar and showed a high correlation coefficient.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Inclusion algorithm. SPT: Skin prick test.
Figure 2
Figure 2
A. SDS-PAGE of the tomato extracts. Lane Std. Standard Low molecular weight (BioRad); Lane 1 Peel extract; lane 2 Pulp extract. B. Immunoblot with a specific pool of sera from tomato sensitized individuals. Solid phase: Lane 1 Peel extract; lane 2 Pulp extract.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Box plot of wheal sizes induced by the different extracts in subjects from groups I and II. Horizontal lines indicate the 50th, 25–75th and 10–90th percentiles and white circles, values out of the 10–90th percentile range.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Regression curves among subjects from group I. Comparison between the different extracts. Only subjects with at least a positive skin test (wheal size ≥ 7 mm2) were included.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Bousquet J, Anto JM, Bachert C, Bousquet PJ, Colombo P, Crameri R, Daeron M, Fokkens W, Leynaert B, Lahoz C, Maurer M, Passalacqua G, Valenta R, van Hage M, Van Ree R. Factors responsible for differences between asymptomatic subjects and patients presenting an IgE sensitization to allergens. A GA2LEN project. Allergy. 2006;61:671–80. doi: 10.1111/j.1398-9995.2006.01048.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Asero R, Ballmer-Weber BK, Beyer K, Conti A, Dubakiene R, Fernandez-Rivas M, Hoffmann-Sommergruber K, Lidholm J, Mustakov T, Oude Elberink JN, Pumphrey RS, Stahl Skov P, van Ree R, Vlieg-Boerstra BJ, Hiller R, Hourihane JO, Kowalski M, Papadopoulos NG, Wal JM, Mills EN, Vieths S. IgE-Mediated food allergy diagnosis: Current status and new perspectives. Mol Nutr Food Res. 2007;51:135–47. doi: 10.1002/mnfr.200600132. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cuesta-Herranz J, Lázaro M, Martínez A, Álvarez-Cuesta E, Figueredo E, Martínez J, Cuesta C, de las Heras M. A method for quantitation of food biologic activity: results with peach allergen extracts. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1998;102:275–80. doi: 10.1016/S0091-6749(98)70096-X. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ferrer A, Carnés J, Gallego MT, Andreu C, Fernández-Caldas E. Characterization and improvement of apple extracts for the diagnosisof apple IgE-mediated allergy. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2005;95:462–7. - PubMed
    1. Ortolani C, Ispano M, Pastorello EA, Ansaloni R, Magri GC. Comparison of results of skin prick tests (with fresh foods and commercial food extracts) and RAST in 100 patients with oral allergy syndrome. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1989;83:683–690. doi: 10.1016/0091-6749(89)90083-3. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources