Cypress Pollen-Peach Cross-Reactivity: The Emerging Role of Pru p 7 as a Marker of Severe Allergic Phenotypes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The peach allergen Pru p 7, a member of the Gibberellin-Regulated Protein (GRP) family, has emerged as a key marker of severe fruit-induced allergies. It is hypothesized to mediate cross-reactivity between fruit allergens and cypress pollen. Given the increasing prevalence of food allergies and the complex patterns of cross-sensitization, the role of Pru p 7 in clinical allergy diagnostics warrants further investigation. Objective: This study aims to characterize the sensitization profile to Pru p 7 in a cohort of patients with suspected fruit allergy and to assess its relationship with cypress pollen allergy, particularly to Cup s 7, a homologous GRP from Cupressus sempervirens. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 20 patients evaluated at the Allergy Unit of the Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo. Specific IgE (sIgE) levels to peach extract, Pru p 7, and Cup a 1 (cypress extract) were assessed using the ImmunoCAP® system (Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., Waltham, MA, USA). Statistical associations between sensitizations were evaluated using chi-square tests and Spearman’s correlation. Results: Sensitization to peach extract, Pru p 7, and cypress pollen was detected in 38%, 30%, and 45% of patients, respectively. Significant associations were observed between peach and cypress (χ2 = 8.80, p = 0.003), peach and Pru p 7 (χ2 = 8.23, p = 0.004), and cypress and Pru p 7 (χ2 = 6.55, p = 0.01). Notably, all patients sensitized to Pru p 7 also tested positive for both peach and cypress allergens, supporting the hypothesis of pollen–food cross-reactivity. Conclusions: Pru p 7 is a clinically relevant allergen that may account for severe allergic responses in patients not sensitized to classical peach allergens. Its cross-reactivity with Cupressaceae-derived GRPs, such as Cup s 7, highlights the importance of molecular diagnostics in evaluating food allergies, particularly in regions with significant exposure to cypress pollen.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".