Cited by 102Contact Dermatitis and AllergiesOccupational exposure and asthmaFood Allergy and Anaphylaxis Research

In vivo sensitization to purified Hevea brasiliensis proteins in health care workers sensitized to natural rubber latex

Open access
Bernstein, David I., Biagini, Raymond E., Karnani, Ravi, Hamilton, Robert, Murphy, Karen, Bernstein, Cheryl, Arif, Siti Arija M., Berendts, Brian +1 more·2003·Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology

Abstract

Background Thirteen proteins of natural rubber latex (Hevea brasiliensis) known to bind human IgE have been isolated and characterized as Hev b allergens. However, the in vivo importance of native Hev b allergens has not been defined in health care workers (HCWs) with natural rubber latex (NRL) allergy.Objectives The principal aim of this study was to identify the major in vivo Hev b allergens in HCWs with NRL allergy confirmed by percutaneous sensitivity to nonammoniated latex (NAL).Methods Skin prick testing was performed with 7 (native) proteins purified from NAL (Hev b 1, 2, 3, 4, 6.01, 7.01, and a newly described Hev b 13) and recombinant Hev b 5 in 62 HCWs with histories of NRL allergy (group 1) confirmed by percutaneous reactivity to NAL and in 49 atopic HCWs without NRL allergy (group 2). Serial 10-fold concentrations of Hev b proteins (5 x 10(-5) microg/mL to 50 microg/mL) were tested; serum samples of subjects were assayed for serum specific IgE by immunoassays.Results Hev b 2, Hev b 5, Hev b 6.01, and Hev b 13 produced skin reactions in more than 60% of group 1 subjects, with Hev b 1, 3, 4, and 7.01 eliciting reactions in less than 50%. Only 1 of 49 group 2 workers reacted to a single Hev b antigen (Hev b 13). Specificity of 7 Hev b allergens was 100% and 98% for Hev b 13 in identifying workers with confirmed NRL allergy. Specific IgE by AlaSTAT and CAP immunoassays was elevated in 40 of 60 (67%) and 33 of 62 (53%) of NAL-reactive workers and produced false-positive test results in 4 of 49 (8%) and 3 of 48 (6%) group 2 subjects, respectively.Conclusion Hev b 2, 5, and 6.01 are major in vivo allergens and Hev b 13 is a new major in vivo allergen among HCWs with allergy to NRL.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1067/mai.2003.164

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Modern SPT of aeroallergens can be up to 25% more sensitive than specific IgE serology depending on the patient population and methodologies employed.

    “Modern SPT of aeroallergens can be up to 25% more sensitive than sIgE serology depending on the patient population and the methodologies employed.793,930-934”

    From International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (2018) · cites this paper as [933]

    The Environmental and occupational disorders section says latex skin prick testing was more sensitive than serum-specific IgE assays for detecting natural rubber latex allergy in health care workers. The Study design section mentions aeroallergen skin tests, but the serum IgE tests measured latex; the paper does not establish the claimed comparison for aeroallergens or the ‘up to 25%’ figure. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Sanchez Palacios A. Latex allergy: diagnosis and therapeutic aspects [in Spanish]. Allergol Immunopathol (Madr) 2001;29:212-21.
  2. Sunderasan E, Hamzah S, Hamid S, Ward MA, Yeang HY, Cardosa MJ. J Nat Rubb Res 1995;10:82-99.
  3. Hornung RRL. Estimate of average concentration in the presence of non- detectable values. Appl Occup Environ Hyg 1990;5:46-51.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bernstein, D. I., Biagini, R. E., Karnani, R., Hamilton, R., Murphy, K., Bernstein, C., Arif, S. A. M., Berendts, B., & Yeang, H. Y.
Affiliations
  • University of Cincinnati (US)
  • National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (US)
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US)
  • Bernstein Clinical Research Center (US)
Venue
Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2003-03
Volume
111
Issue
3
Pages
610-616
ISSN
0091-6749 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2098577852
Cited by
102
References
14
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 6
FWCI
12.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (Y02ES10189)
  • National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Dermatology › Contact Dermatitis and Allergies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Occupational exposure and asthma
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Immunology and Allergy › Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Research
Keywords
latex allergy, healthcare workers, skin prick test, specific IgE, allergen identification
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Allergens, Female, Health Personnel, Humans, Immunoassay, Male, Middle Aged, Plant Proteins, Skin Tests, Latex Hypersensitivity, Hevea, Antigens, Plant

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review