The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Clinical Impact of Bet v 6 in Birch Pollen-Sensitized Patients
Abstract
Background: Bet v 6, a minor birch pollen allergen, is commercially available for allergen-specific IgE antibody testing. However, there is hardly any literature on the clinical impact of Bet v 6. The aim of the present study was to analyze if testing specific IgE against Bet v 6 can add valuable benefit to the standard diagnostics of birch pollen-sensitized patients, especially in patients with unknown sensitization-eliciting allergens. Methods: Birch pollen-sensitized patients with missing IgE reactivity against Bet v 1, 2, and 4 were tested for specific IgE antibodies against Bet v 6. For comparison, an equal number of randomly selected patients with birch pollen sensitization, regardless of their individual sensitization patterns, were tested for specific anti-Bet v 6. Results: Of 57 cases with missing reactivity against the standard birch pollen allergens, 2 patients were positive for Bet v 6. In the representative sample, 3 patients showed specific IgE against Bet v 6 - resulting in a total prevalence of 5%. None of the Bet v 6-positive patients showed allergic symptoms after exposure to birch pollen or an oral allergy syndrome. An increased prevalence of asthma and a higher degree of sensitization were the only distinctive clinical features in Bet v 6-positive patients. Conclusions: Among birch pollen-sensitized patients, the prevalence of specific IgE against Bet v 6 is low. Further, sensitization to Bet v 6, which shows characteristics of a panallergen, remains clinically silent. Therefore, determination of anti-Bet v 6 is not considered useful in the clinical routine.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Cross-reactivity with other legumes or foods containing similar proteins may exacerbate allergic responses, particularly in individuals with a primary sensitization to peanut or soybean allergens [186].”
From Pollen–Food Allergy Syndrome: Allergens, Clinical Insights, Diagnostic and Therapeutic Challenges (2024) · cites this paper as [186]
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 25
- 10.1111/all.12696 · DOI
- 10.1034/j.1398-9995.2003.00245.x · DOI
- 10.1016/S0091-6749(99)70080-1 · DOI
- 10.1007/BF01610553 · DOI
- 10.1186/1710-1492-6-1 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1159/000321178 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1365-2222.2004.01837.x · DOI
- 10.1007/s00105-010-1967-y · DOI
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0109075 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1398-9995.2008.01807.x · DOI
- 10.1159/000444279 · DOI
- 10.1007/s00405-013-2609-7 · DOI
- 10.1111/all.12841 · DOI
- 10.1002/alr.21612 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1365-2222.2010.03470.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1399-3038.2011.01228.x · DOI
- 10.1097/ACI.0b013e3283630ca5 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1365-2222.2006.02460.x · DOI
- 10.1046/j.1365-2222.1997.d01-418.x · DOI
- 10.1046/j.1365-3083.1998.00294.x · DOI
- 10.1159/000053670 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2002.tb04132.x · DOI
- 10.1159/000082584 · DOI
- 10.1021/jf0491963 · DOI
- 10.1111/all.12676 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Pollen–Food Allergy Syndrome: Allergens, Clinical Insights, Diagnostic and Therapeutic Challenges
Haidar, L., Bănărescu, C. F., Uța, C., Moldovan, S. I., Zimbru, E.-L., Zimbru, R.-I., Ciurariu, E., Georgescu, M., & Panaitescu, C. (2024) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app15010066 · Cited by 21
Metadata
- Authors
- Gellrich, D., Eder, K., San Nicoló, M., Berghaus, A., & Gröger, M.
- ORCID
- San Nicoló, Marion
- Venue
- International Archives of Allergy and Immunology
- Publisher
- S. Karger AG
- Published
- 2017
- Volume
- 173
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 34-43
- ISSN
- 1018-2438
- 1423-0097
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
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