Allergy information for: Mango (Mangifera indica )

Clinical History

• Number of Studies:1-5
• Number of Patients:>50
• Symptoms:

  Anaphylactic reaction (Dang R.W. and Bell D.B.1967; Miell J. et al 1988; Armentia A. et al 1994).

  One patient complaind of a burning sensation in her mouth; swelling of lips, face, and tongue as well as of nausea and abdominal cramps after eating apeeled mango. Another patient experienced generalized itching and hives, profuse sweating, abdominal pain, nausea and vomiting (Jansen A. et al 1992).

  In a French study, 6% of a group of 580 patients with pathological reactions to foods showed sensitization to mango (Andre F. et al 1994).

  On hundred and thirty six patients with immediate-type sensibility to latex. Some of them showed intolerance reaction to mango fruit (Brehler R. et al 1997).

  Oral allergy syndrome (OAS), rhinoconjunctivitis, cough, and dyspnea (Duque et al. 1999)

Skin Prick Test

• Number of Studies:1-5
• Food/Type of allergen:

  Peel and pulp mango extract prepared as follows: Peel and pulp were homogenized separtely ina food processor and freeze-dried. This material was shaken for 1 h at room temperature with 4.5 ml of phosphate buffered saline, pH 7.4, 0.03% (w/v) human serum albumin, 0.5% v/v phenol. After centrifugation for 10 min at 1400 g the supernatant was filter through a 0.22 µm filter and kept frozen at -20°C. Pistachio extracts were obtained as before but previously deffated by ether extraction (Jansen et al. 1992)

  Fresh mango (Duque et al.1999)

• Protocol: (controls, definition of positive etc)

  Skin prick tests (SPTs) were performed by application of one drop of allergenic extract on the skin of the volar side of the forearm. Subsequently, the dermis was punctured with a skin test meedle. SPTs with fresh mango was performed using a modified SPT. Mango fruit pulp withdrawn with a disposable tuberculin syringe was placed on the skin and the superficial layer of the skin was punctured and lifted with the same syringe. Histamine dihydrochloride (1 mg/mL) and physiological saline were used as a positive and a negative control respectively. SPT results was read after 20 min and recorded as positive if the mean diameter of the wheal was the same or larger than that of the histamine reaction. Intracutaneous tests (ICT) were performed with 10-fold dilutions in phosphate buffered saline pH7.4, 0.03% (w/v) human serum albumin, 0.5% v/v phenol of the filtered extract. A concentration inducing a 1+ reaction was regarded as the skin threshold value (Jansen et al. 1992).

  Not stated (Duque et al.1999)

• Number of Patients:

  2 patients (Jansen et al. 1992)

  A 45 year old woman sensitized to latex (Duque et al.1999)

• Summary of Results:

  All patients were positive with fresh mango but not with mango extracts. One of the patients had a positive SPT to pistachio extract. In both patients intracutaneous reactions to both mango extracts (peel and pulp) were positive. In addition, one patient showed a positive reaction to pistachio extract (Jansen et al. 1992).

  Skin prick prick tests with fresh mango were positive (2+) in the patient and negative in three healthy controls (Duque et al.1999)

IgE assay (by RAST, CAP etc)

• Number of Studies:0
• Food/Type of allergen:

  Commercial extracts (Jansen et al. 1992) (Duque et al. 1999) (Paschke et al. 2001) [145]

• IgE protocol:

  EAST (Andre et al. 1994).

  RAST (Duque et al. 1999) (Jansen et al. 1992)

  EAST (Paschke et al. 2001) [145]

• Number of Patients:580 patients (Andre et al. 1994)
  A 45 year old woman sensitized to latex (Duque et al.1999)

  9 patients that suffered from clinical symptoms to celery, mugwort and birch pollen. 5/9 showed clinical symptoms after eating mango fruit (Paschke et al. 2001) [145]

  2 patients (Jansen et al. 1992)

• Summary of Results:6% of the patients had IgE to mango fruit (Andre et al. 1994)
  The patient had IgE specific to mango (class 3) (Duque et al. 1999)

  All patients had specific IgE to mango (Paschke et al. 2001) [145]

  All patients had specific IgE to mango and 1/2 had specific IgE to pistachio (Jansen et al. 1992)

Immunoblotting

• Immunoblotting separation:Proteins were separated by discontinuous SDS-PAGE with a 5 % (w/v) acrylamide stacking gel and a 13 % (w/v) acrylamide resolving gel. Protein samples were reduced with beta-mercaptoethanol (Kinder et al. 1999)

  The separation of the allergen extracts by sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE) with a 5% stacking gel and a 13% resolving gel under reducing conditions (Paschke et al. 2001) [145] [146]

  For electrophoresis, the protein samples were diluted and reduced in beta-mercaptoethanol buffer prior to heating at 90°C for 3 min. SDS-PAGE was performed in 10% polyacrylamide gels (Dube et al. 2004)

• Immunoblotting detection method:

  The nitrocellulose membranes were blocked with buffer containing 5 % (w/v) skimmed milk powder, and 0.1 % (v/v) Tween 20 in phosphate buffered saline (PBS (0.01 M potassium phosphate buffer, pH 7.4, 0.13 M sodium chloride)). Nitrocellulose strips were incubated overnight with patients sera. After incubation with rabbit anti-human IgE (1:4000), biotinylated goat anti-rabbit IgG (1:6000) and streptavidin-horseradish peroxidase conjugate (1:20000), the blots were stained with 3,3',5,5'-tetramethylbenzidine-dioctylsodiumsulphosuccinate (Kinder et al. 1999)

  The nitrocellulose membranes were blocked with buffer containing 5 % (v/v) skimmed milk powder, and 0.1 % (v/v) Tween 20 in phosphate buffered saline (PBS (0.01 M potassium phosphate buffer, pH 7.4, 0.13 M sodium chloride)). Nitrocellulose strips were incubated overnight with patients sera. After incubation with rabbit anti-human IgE (1:4000), biotinylated goat anti-rabbit IgG (1:6000) and streptavidin-horseradish peroxidase conjugate (1:20000), the blots were stained with 3,3',5,5'-tetramethylbenzidine-dioctylsodiumsulphosuccinate (Paschke et al. 2001) [145] [146]

  Protein were transferred on a nitrocellulose membrane (0.2 µm). After blotting, one strip with separated extract and one strip with molecular-mass-marker proteins were briefly stained with colloidal gold to visualize the transfer of proteins. To prevent unspecific binding, the dried membranes were treated twice with 5% (w/v) skimmed milk powder and 0.1% (v/v) Tween 20 in PBS. Subsequently nitrocellulose strips were incubated with pooled patients' sera diluted 1:14 with incubation buffer (0.3% (w/v) BSA, 0.1% (v/v) Tween 20 in PBS). The strips were then incubated with rabbit antihuman IgE (1:4000, 60 min), biotinylated goat antirabbit IgE (1:6000, 60 min), and streptavidin-horseradish peroxidase conjugate (1:20000; 20 min), respectively, and stained with 3,3',5,5'-tetramethylbenzidine (TMB) and dioctylsodiumsulfosuccinate (DONS) (Dube et al. 2004)

• Immunoblotting results:

  IgE binding was observed to 25-50 kDa mango polypeptides together with IgE binding to a 40 kDa latex protein (Duque et al. 1999)

  In another study, IgE-binding proteins with molecular masses of approximately 14, 30, 40, 43, and 67 kDa were detected in mango (Paschke et al. 2001) [145]

  A thirth study showed IgE binding in 46/52 allergic individuals of 30 and 40 kDa polypeptides. In addition, IgE-binding proteins were seen at 14 kDa (8 sera), 16 kDa (6 sera), 25 kDa (6 sera ), 43 kDa (17 sera), 50 kDa (12 sera) and 67 kDa (21 sera) (Paschke et al. 2001) [146]

  The allergens in extracts of the mango varieties Osteen, Eden, Tommy Atkins and Ngowe were characterized by SDS-PAGE / immunoblotting using seven sera from mango allergic patients. All sera detected the same allergens in each strain. Allergens with Mr of approx. 14, 30, 40, 43 and 67 kDa were visible in each strain. Furthermore there was no difference between the varieties in detection intensity of any allergen (Kinder et al. 1999)

  IgE binding in 7/9 individuals of 30 kDa, in 6/9 of 40 kDa major allergen was observed. Specific binding was also observed for allergens with molecular masses of 67, 60, 43, 37, 20, 18, 16, 14 kDa, and above 67 kDa (Dube et al. 2004)

Oral provocation

• Number of Studies:
• Food used and oral provocation vehicle:
• Blind:
• Number of Patients:
• Dose response:
• Symptoms:No oral provocation performed

IgE cross-reactivity and Polysensitisation

Other Clinical information

Reviews (0)

References (13)

• Dang R.W. and Bell D.B.
  Anaphlylactic reaction to the ingestion of a mango.
  Case report. Hawai Me. J. 27: 149-150.. 1967
  PUBMEDID:
• Miell J., Papouchado M. and Marshall A.J.
  Anaphylactic reaction after eating mango.
  BMJ 297: 1639-1640.. 1988
  PUBMEDID: 3147776
• Jansen A., de Lijster de Raadt J., van Toorenengergen A.W. and van Wijk R.G.
  Allergy to pistachio nuts.
  Allergy Proc. 13: 255-258.. 1992
  PUBMEDID: 1483575
• Andre F., Andre C., Colin L., Cacaraci F. and Cavagna S.
  Role of new allergens and of allergen consumption in the increased incidence of food sensitizations in France.
  Toxicology 93: 77-83.. 1994
  PUBMEDID: 7974507
• Armentia A., Sanchis E., Mendez J., Frutos J. De la Fuente R. and Sánchez P.
  Anafilaxia por ingesta de mango.
  Alergol. Inmunol. Clin 7: 105.. 1994
  PUBMEDID:
• Kinder H., Scharf B., Steinhart H. and Paschke A.
  Investigation of IgE-binding patterns and allergenicity of mango fruit allergens in different varieties.
  Internet Symposium on Food Allergens 143- 149.. 1999
  PUBMEDID:
• Duque S, Fernandez-Pellon L, Rodriguez F.
  Mango allergy in a latex-sensitized patient
  Allergy. 54(9):1004-5.. 1999
  PUBMEDID: 10505467
• Paschke A, Kinder H, Zunker K, Wigotzki M, Wessbecher R, Vieluf D, Steinhart H
  Characterization of allergens in mango fruit and ripening dependence of the allergenic potency.
  Food and Agricultural Immunology 13: 51-61.. 2001
  PUBMEDID:
• Paschke A, Kinder H, Zunker K, Wigotzki M, Steinhart H, Wessbecher R, Vieluf I
  Characterization of cross-reacting allergens in mango fruit.
  Allergy 56:237-242.. 2001
  PUBMEDID: 11251404
• Fernandez C, Fiandor A, Martinez-Garate A, Martinez Quesada J
  Allergy to pistachio: crossreactivity between pistachio nut and other Anacardiaceae.
  Clin Exp Allergy 25: 1254-1259.. 1995
  PUBMEDID: 8821307
• Brehler R, Theissen U, Mohr C, Luger T
  "Latex-fruit syndrome": frequency of cross-reacting IgE antibodies.
  Allergy 52: 404-410.. 1997
  PUBMEDID: 9188921
• Wellhausen A, Schoning B, Petersen A, Vieths S
  IgE binding to a new cross-reactive structure: a 35 kDa protein in birch pollen, exotic fruit and other plant foods
  Z Ernahrungswiss. 35(4):348-55. 1996
  PUBMEDID: 9000332
• Wuthrich B and Hofer T
  Food allergy: the celery-mugwort-spice syndrome associated with mango allergy?
  Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 109:981-986. 1984
  PUBMEDID:

Biochemical Information for Man i 1

• Allergen Name:Man i 1
• Alternatve Allergen Names:
• Allergen Designation:None
• Protein Family:Not known
• Sequence Known?:No
• Allergen accession No.s:
• 3D Structure Accession No.:Not determined
• Calculated Masses:Not determined
• Experimental Masses:40 kDa
• Oligomeric Masses:
• Allergen epitopes:Not known
• Allergen stability:
  Process, chemical, enzymatic:Not known although there was no apparent change in allergen potency during ripening of mango (Paschke et al. 2001) [146]. IgE reactivity of 7 sera and a pool serum to a 40 kDa polypeptide in mango extracts, purees and nectars remained (Dube et al. 2004)
• Nature of main cross-reacting proteins:

  East inhibition and immunoblot inhibition studies have been used to characterize cross-reactions between mango, birch and mugwort pollen, celery and carrot. The main cross-reacting allergens implicated are Bet v 1 and Art v 1 (Paschke et al 2001) [145].

  IgE cross-reactivity between a 35 kDa protein in birch pollen and a protein of comparable size from mango has been demonstrated (Wellhausen et al. 1996). However, this mango protein was not detected by Paschke et al (2001) [145].

  Diaz-Perales et al. (1999) identified proteins of approximately 30 to 45 kDa (putative class I chitinases) which were recognized by patients with latex-fruit allergy in mango. These proteins did not react with a pool of sera from subjects allergic to latex but not to fruit.

• Allergen properties & biological function:Not known.
• Allergen purification:The allergen has not been purified but Man i 1 has been shown to exist as two isoforms of pI 4.6 and 4.8 (Paschke et al. 2001) [146] .
• Other biochemical information:

References (5)

• Diaz-Perales, A, Collada C, Blanco C, Sanchez-Monge R, Carrillo T, Aragoncillo C. and Salcedo G
  Cross -reactions in the latex -fruit syndrome: A relevant role of chitinases but not of complex asparagine-linked glycans.
  J.Allergy Clin.Immunol. 104:681-687.. 1999
  PUBMEDID: 10482846
• Dube M, Zunker K, Neidhart S, Carle R, Steinhart H, Paschke A
  Effect of technological processing on the allergenicity of mangoes (Mangifera indica L.).
  J Agric Food Chem. 52(12):3938-45. 2004
  PUBMEDID: 15186120
• Paschke A, Kinder H, Zunker K, Wigotzki M, Wessbecher R, Vieluf D, Steinhart H
  Characterization of allergens in mango fruit and ripening dependence of the allergenic potency.
  Food and Agricultural Immunology 13: 51-61.. 2001
  PUBMEDID:
• Paschke A, Kinder H, Zunker K, Wigotzki M, Steinhart H, Wessbecher R, Vieluf I
  Characterization of cross-reacting allergens in mango fruit.
  Allergy 56:237-242.. 2001
  PUBMEDID: 11251404
• Wellhausen A, Schoning B, Petersen A, Vieths S
  IgE binding to a new cross-reactive structure: a 35 kDa protein in birch pollen, exotic fruit and other plant foods
  Z Ernahrungswiss. 35(4):348-55. 1996
  PUBMEDID: 9000332

Biochemical Information for Man i 2

• Allergen Name:Man i 2
• Alternatve Allergen Names:
• Allergen Designation:None
• Protein Family:Not known
• Sequence Known?:No
• Allergen accession No.s:
• 3D Structure Accession No.:Not determined
• Calculated Masses:Not determined
• Experimental Masses:30 kDa
• Oligomeric Masses:
• Allergen epitopes:Not known
• Allergen stability:
  Process, chemical, enzymatic:Not known although IgE reactivity of 7 sera and a pool serum to a 30 kDa polypeptide in mango purees and nectars did not remain (Dube et al. 2004)
• Nature of main cross-reacting proteins:

  East inhibition and immunoblot inhibition studies have been used to characterize cross-reactions between mango, birch and mugwort pollen, celery and carrot. The main cross-reacting allergens implicated are Bet v 1 and Art v 1 (Paschke et al 2001) [145].

  IgE cross-reactivity between a 35 kDa protein in birch pollen and a protein of comparable size from mango has been demonstrated (Wellhausen et al. 1996). However, this mango protein was not detected by Paschke et al (2001) [145].

  Diaz-Perales et al. (1999) identified proteins of approximately 30 to 45 kDa (putative class I chitinases) which were recognized by patients with latex-fruit allergy in mango. These proteins did not react with a pool of sera from subjects allergic to latex but not to fruit.

• Allergen properties & biological function:Not known
• Allergen purification:

  Not purified

• Other biochemical information:Man i 2 has a pI of 4.9 (Paschke et al. 2001) [146] .

References (5)

• Paschke A, Kinder H, Zunker K, Wigotzki M, Wessbecher R, Vieluf D, Steinhart H
  Characterization of allergens in mango fruit and ripening dependence of the allergenic potency.
  Food and Agricultural Immunology 13: 51-61.. 2001
  PUBMEDID:
• Paschke A, Kinder H, Zunker K, Wigotzki M, Steinhart H, Wessbecher R, Vieluf I
  Characterization of cross-reacting allergens in mango fruit.
  Allergy 56:237-242.. 2001
  PUBMEDID: 11251404
• Diaz-Perales, A, Collada C, Blanco C, Sanchez-Monge R, Carrillo T, Aragoncillo C. and Salcedo G
  Cross -reactions in the latex -fruit syndrome: A relevant role of chitinases but not of complex asparagine-linked glycans.
  J.Allergy Clin.Immunol. 104:681-687.. 1999
  PUBMEDID: 10482846
• Dube M, Zunker K, Neidhart S, Carle R, Steinhart H, Paschke A
  Effect of technological processing on the allergenicity of mangoes (Mangifera indica L.).
  J Agric Food Chem. 52(12):3938-45. 2004
  PUBMEDID: 15186120
• Wellhausen A, Schoning B, Petersen A, Vieths S
  IgE binding to a new cross-reactive structure: a 35 kDa protein in birch pollen, exotic fruit and other plant foods
  Z Ernahrungswiss. 35(4):348-55. 1996
  PUBMEDID: 9000332