Skin Prick Test Reactivity to Recombinant Latex Allergens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Allergy to latex has become a serious and increasingly common health problem, particularly for healthcare workers and patients who undergo frequent surgical procedures. Testing for latex allergy currently involves in vitro tests and skin prick testing using crude preparations of natural rubber latex (NRL). To date, 10 latex proteins have received designation as allergens (Hev b 1 to Hev b 10) and, except for Hev b 4, have been cloned as recombinant proteins. Our aim was to compare the skin prick test (SPT) reactivity of six recombinant latex allergens with SPT reactivity to natural rubber latex proteins in known latex-allergic individuals. METHODS: Six recombinant proteins were expressed in Escherichia coli, and tested as the intact fusion proteins (Hev b 2, 5, 6, 8) or as purified proteins (Hev b 3 and 7). SPT with the six recombinant latex allergens was performed using 10-fold serial dilutions on 31 latex-allergic subjects to determine the level of reactivity to each recombinant allergen. Latex-specific IgE was determined using the AlaSTAT assay. RESULTS: All six recombinant allergens were reactive by SPT in at least 1 latex-allergic patient but not in any of the control patients. The frequency of sensitization to the various recombinant allergens was similar to previous studies using the native proteins isolated from NRL. The minimal level of protein for a positive skin test was 70 pg/ml for NRL and 1 ng/ml for one recombinant allergen (Hev b 7). In our patients, the use of a combination of recombinant latex allergens Hev b 5, 6 and 7 diagnosed latex allergy with 93% sensitivity and 100% specificity. CONCLUSION: Recombinant latex allergens are clinically reactive, can be produced in a standardized manner, and could potentially provide safe, sensitive and specific reagents for the diagnosis of latex allergy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".