Skip to main content
Download PDF

The role of molecular diagnosis in anaphylactic patients with dual or triple-sensitization to Hymenoptera venoms

Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology volume 20, Article number: 22 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

The poly-sensitization to Hymenoptera venom makes it difficult to select genuine allergens for immunotherapy and increases patients’ costs. The objective of this study was to determine the culprit allergen in dual or triple-sensitized patients to three Hymenoptera venoms through molecular diagnosis and evaluating the results of incorporating the molecular diagnosis with skin tests.

Methods

Thirty-two patients with anaphylactic reactions and dual or triple-sensitization to Hymenoptera venoms in skin tests entered this study. IgE-sensitization to whole extracts and molecules of Apis mellifera (Api m), Vespula vulgaris (Ves v), and Polistes dominulus (Pol d) was evaluated utilizing ALEX or ImmunoCAP.

Results

Twenty-nine patients (90.6%) were male. IgE-sensitization to at least one of the allergenic molecules related to Apis mellifera, Vespula vulgaris, and Polistes dominulus was seen in 59.4, 53.1, and 21.9%, respectively. Among 32 patients, 14 (43.8) and 8 (25%), were mono-sensitized to Api m and Ves v components in ALEX, respectively. Double sensitization to Hymenoptera was identified in 18.8% of patients in ALEX. Api m 1+/Api m 2−/Api m 10− and Ves v 1+/Ves v 5+ demonstrated the most prevalent sensitizations patterns in our patients.

Conclusions

The molecular diagnosis of IgE-sensitization to Hymenoptera venoms can be valuable, especially in patients who show dual or triple-sensitization in skin tests, as the ALEX results revealed mono and double-sensitization to Hymenoptera venoms in 22 and 6 patients, respectively. Regarding the high cost and adverse reactions of venom immunotherapy, especially for two or three venoms, incorporating the molecular diagnosis alongside skin tests for accurate diagnosis of the culprit venom could help decrease costs for patients.

Introduction

Bees, wasps, sawflies, and ants belong to one of the most significant orders of insects called Hymenoptera, which includes more than 153,000 known species [1]. Apis mellifera (Honey Bee), Vespula spp. (Yellow Jacket), and Polistes spp. (Paper Wasp) are considered the common allergenic species of the Apidae and Vespidae families in the Hymenoptera order [2,3,4].

Severe immediate hypersensitivity reactions to Hymenoptera sting are recognized as a serious concern worldwide [5]. A prevalence of 0.3 to 7.5% has been reported in adults with systemic allergic reactions to Hymenoptera sting [6].

A comprehensive clinical history and a positive specific IgE to Hymenoptera allergens using in vivo [skin prick test (SPT) or intradermal] or in vitro tests and consequently the exact determination of the offending insect constitute cornerstones for the diagnosis of Hymenoptera venom allergy [4, 6]. Conventional extract-based diagnostics often show poly-sensitization to two or more venom, making the selection of genuine allergens difficult for allergen-specific immunotherapy [2, 7]. This poly-sensitization could be developed due to IgE binding to allergenic molecules with similar structures or cross-reactive carbohydrates (CCD) [2]. The production of recombinant molecules without carbohydrate moieties, molecular diagnosis of allergy, and advances in the methods for CCD inhibition led to higher diagnostic sensitivity [8, 9].

According to the WHO/IUIS Allergen Nomenclature, 12, 5, and 5 allergenic molecules were recognized for Apis mellifera (Api m), Vespula vulgaris (Ves v), and Polistes dominulus (Pol d), respectively [10]. A novel technique called Allergy Explorer, ALEX (Macroarray Diagnostics, Vienna, Austria) has been developed to determine the specific IgE to 282 whole extracts and allergenic molecules. The application of a CCD inhibitor in the diluent solution of this method and using recombinant molecules decrease false-positive results, especially for allergenic molecules of Hymenoptera venoms [9]. Approximately 30% of patients show dual-sensitization to Honey Bee and Wasp while demonstrating a clinical allergic reaction to one insect [11]. This study intended to determine the culprit allergen in dual and triple-sensitized patients to Hymenoptera venom, including Apis mellifera (Honey Bee; HB), Vespula sp. (Yellow Jacket, YJ) and Polistes sp. (Wasp Venom or Paper wasp; PW), through the molecular diagnosis of allergy. Another objective of the present study was to evaluate the results of incorporating the molecular diagnosis (ALEX and ImmunoCAP) with SPT and intradermal tests.

Methods

Patients

This research was conducted in a cross-sectional design. Thirty-two patients with anaphylactic reactions to Hymenoptera venoms referred to Rasool-e-Akram Hospital, entered the study between the years 2018 and 2020. The Ethics Committee of the Iran University of Medical Sciences approved this study (No.: IR.IUMS.FMD.REC.1398.321). Written informed consent was taken from all participants.

Inclusion criteria

The study included all patients with anaphylactic reactions to Hymenoptera stings who had completed a refractory period of at least 4 weeks since the last anaphylactic attack. The anaphylaxis diagnosis was based on World Allergy Organization (WAO) criteria [12]. Moreover, patients should discontinue antihistamines and interfering drugs within one week before the beginning of the study.

Exclusion criteria

This study excluded subjects with non-systemic reactions to Hymenoptera stings, mono-sensitized patients to Hymenoptera venom using skin tests, and patients with anaphylactic reactions to fire ant. Additionally, lack of consent by the patient was an exclusion criterion.

Clinical investigations

For all patients, a questionnaire with demographic and clinical questions was fulfilled. Following the presentation of a picture of the Hymenoptera along with the geographical location, the type of Hymenopterawas recorded according to the patient's history and the pictures of the insects. According to the Mueller classification, symptoms severity is categorized into four grades [13].

Skin prick test and intradermal test

Skin prick and intradermal tests were performed for Honey Bee Venom (Apis mellifera), Yellow Jacket Venom Protein (Vespula sp.), and Wasp Venom Protein (Polistes sp.) using commercial standard extracts (Jubilant Hollister Stier, Spokane, WA, USA). SPT was performed in the forearm area using a 1 µg/mL dilution of whole extracts of Hymenoptera venom [14,15,16].

An intradermal test was done in the forearm area using an insulin syringe with 1 µg/mL dilution of an extract. The positive and negative controls were histamine and normal saline, respectively. A 3-mm wheal greater than the negative control was considered positive [14].

Molecular diagnosis

A three-milliliter blood sample was taken from all patients. The serum was then separated and assessed with ALEX kits (Allergy Explorer-ALEX®, MacroArray DX, Vienna, Austria). The ALEX is a multiplex assay for assessing total IgE and specific IgE for 282 whole extracts and allergenic molecules at the same time. One-hundred fifty-seven whole extracts and 125 molecules were coated as spots on the nitrocellulose membrane. A 400-µL diluent was added to the membrane, along with 100 µL of the serum sample. There is an interesting point regarding the presence of a CCD inhibitor in the sample diluent. Following the two-hour incubation and 3-step washings, anti-human IgE labelled with alkaline phosphatase was added. After 30-min incubation and 5-step washings, the substrate was added. The reaction was stopped by a stop solution after 8 min. Following drying the membranes, the intensity of the reaction was evaluated by Image-Explorer and Raptor software. A cutoff of > 0.3 kUA/L was considered positive. Further, if a concentration exceeded 15 kUA/L, it was considered very high [9]. IgE-sensitization to whole extracts of Api m, Pol d, and Ves v, as well as the specific IgE to allergenic molecules (Api m 1, Api m 2, Api m 10, Pol d 5 and Ves v 5) were evaluated. Moreover, the specific IgE to Ves v 1 was measured using the ImmunoCAP system (Phadia/Thermo Fisher, Uppsala, Sweden).

Statistical analysis

Data was analyzed using statistical software, including IBM SPSS version 20 (IBM Corporation, NY, USA) and Graphpad Prism 8 (GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA, USA). Moreover, the Venn diagram was drawn by jvenn [17]. The central tendency (mean or median) and the dispersion of the data (SD or quartiles) have been determined based on the distribution of the data. Categorical variables were presented as frequency and percentage. The association between two categorical variables was evaluated by Chi square test. The correlation was determined by spearman's correlation test. Independent t-test or Mann–Whitney test were used to compare the difference of a quantitative variable between two independent groups. The agreement between some variables was determined by the kappa coefficient.

Results

Twenty-nine (90.6%) of the 32 patients were male. The study participants had a mean (±SD) age 36.65 ± 15.15 years (min 7 and max 67 years). Twelve patients reported a history of atopic diseases (37.5%); the most common was allergic rhinitis, with a prevalence of 31.3%. A family history of atopic diseases was reported in four patients (12.5%). The mean ±SD first and last ages of anaphylactic reaction were 29.26 ± 14.69 and 34.08 ± 14.65 years old, respectively. The median (P25–P75) of total IgE was 127.5 (36–783). HB (n = 17) and YJ (n = 13) were the most common culprit insects based on the patients’ history. A total of 53% of patients with anaphylactic reactions reported two or fewer reactions, and 18.8 % reported more than five. The mean time between insect stings and the onset of symptoms was 9.63 min, while the minimum and maximum times were 1 and 30 min, respectively. Moreover, 18.8% of patients reported a history of allergic reactions to Hymenoptera stings in their family. The head, neck (31.3%), upper limb (28.1%), and lower limb (18.8) were the most frequent sting locations. Patients reported significant complaints related to their skin (90.6%), respiratory (84.4%), and cardiovascular (71.9%) systems.

Table 1 presents the patterns of allergic sensitization to the whole extract and molecules of Api m, Ves v, and Pol d using ALEX test. As the results illustrated, Api m 1 (n = 16), Ves v 1 (n = 13), Ves v 5 (n = 13), and Api m 10 (n = 11) were major allergens in this study. Table 1 demonstrated two patterns including, Ves v 1+/Ves v 5+ and Api m 1+/Api m 2−/Api m 10− patterns as common sensitization patterns in the current study. Despite a low frequency of IgE-sensitization to Vespula vulgaris extract in ALEX, specific IgE assays for its allergenic molecules detected patients with allergy to YJ. Table 2 presents the agreement between the history, the history after showing the Hymenoptera image, the reactivity to SPT and intradermal tests, and the results of molecular diagnosis. By history and pictures, HB was the most commonly recognized Hymenoptera. Only three patients showed positive reactivity to the SPT (YJ = 1, PW = 2), while 32 participants had a positive intradermal test. As the findings of allergic sensitization to Hymenoptera extracts demonstrated, among 32 patients with dual or triple-sensitization in the intradermal test, 15 (46.9%), 1 (3.1%), and 2 (6.25%) patients showed exclusive sensitization to whole extracts of Api m, Ves v, and Pol d in ALEX, respectively. Furthermore, 4 (12.5%) patients revealed double-sensitization to whole extracts of Hymenoptera in ALEX. Following the molecular diagnosis with the ALEX test, 14 (43.8%) and 8 (25%) patients exclusively showed IgE-sensitization to Api m and Ves v components, and 9 subjects (28.1%) demonstrated dual or triple sensitization to allergenic components of two or three venoms. A patient with negative specific IgE to all extracts and molecules has also been observed. Finally, a total of 22 patients (68.8%) exhibited IgE specific to at least one whole allergen extract using the ALEX test, while it identified 31 (97%) patients with allergenic molecules of Hymenoptera. A kappa coefficient of 0.68, 0.48, and 0.07 was obtained for IgE sensitization to Api m, Ves v, and Pol d based on ALEX and the self-reported history of patients. Intradermal and ALEX methods showed the highest agreement for HB. Among the studied Hymenoptera, it seems that the PW, with 76.7%, shows the highest false-positive sensitization in the intradermal test.

Table 1 The frequency and percentage of different patterns of IgE-sensitization to whole extract and molecules of Apis mellifera, Vespula vulgaris and Polistes dominulus in ALEX test
Full size table
Table 2 The agreement of patient history, picture of Hymenoptera, and the SPT, intradermal and ALEX results
Full size table

Figure 1A–C demonstrated the IgE-sensitization to whole extracts of Api m, Ves v, and Pol d; IgE-sensitization to allergenic molecules of Api m as well as IgE-sensitization to allergenic molecules of Ves v, respectively. Contrary to the intradermal results, none of the patients showed IgE sensitization to all three Hymenoptera whole extracts, and exclusive IgE-sensitization to Api m extract was considered the most prevalent (n = 15) (Fig. 1A). Three patients simultaneously showed allergic sensitization to Api m extract and it’s three molecules, as shown in Fig. 1B. None of the subjects showed mono-sensitization to Api m 2. There were four and two individuals with Ves v 1+/Ves v 5− and Ves v 1−/Ves v 5+ sensitization patterns, respectively (Table 1). It should be noted that the results of specific IgE to Ves v 1 were unavailable for two patients. Among 17 patients with sensitization to Ves v, only 3 patients were identified with the whole extract of Ves v, while 14 patients with allergy to Ves v were identified using allergenic molecules of Ves v.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Venn diagram for the IgE-sensitization to whole extracts of Apis mellifera, Vespula vulgaris and Polistes dominulus in ALEX (A); Venn diagram for the IgE-sensitization to allergenic molecules of Apis mellifera in ALEX (B); Venn diagram for the IgE-sensitization to allergenic molecules of Vespula vulgaris with ALEX and ImmunoCAP (C). jvenn was used to draw Venn diagrams [17]

Full size image

Figure 2 displays the wheal diameter of the intradermal test for Hymenoptera venoms and the specific IgE concentration to allergenic extracts and molecules of Hymenoptera venoms according to anaphylaxis grades. No significant difference was found between the wheal diameter of three Hymenoptera and the grade of anaphylaxis. Additionally, patients with mild anaphylaxis had a higher specific IgE to Api m 10 than those with severe anaphylaxis (P = 0.02). Figure 3 shows IgE-sensitization to all studied allergenic molecules in this study.

Fig. 2
figure 2

A Wheal diameter of intradermal test for Hymenoptera venoms according to anaphylaxis grades. B The specific IgE concentration to allergenic extracts and molecules of Hymenoptera venoms according to anaphylaxis grades

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

IgE-sensitization to allergenic extracts and molecules of different Hymenoptera venoms

Full size image

Table 3 demonstrates the relationship between the time interval since the last reaction and the frequency of IgE-sensitization to extracts and molecules of Hymenoptera. With increasing time, the IgE reactivity for most allergens decreased, although it was only significant for Api m1. Moreover, this decline has not been shown for Ves v 1. Specific IgE to Api m whole extract significantly was correlated with specific IgE to Api m 1, Api m 2, and Api m 10 (P < 0.001), although the highest correlation coefficient was related to Api m 1 (r = 0.718) and Api m 10 (r = 0.686). Moreover, specific IgE to Ves v whole extract showed a meaningful correlation with Ves v 5 (P = 0.005, r = 0.475) not Ves v 1(P = 0.14). A significant correlation was found between sIgE to Pol d whole extract and Pol d 5 (P < 0.001, r = 0.78).

Table 3 Relationship between time interval from last reaction with frequency of IgE-sensitization to extracts and molecules of Hymenoptera
Full size table

Discussion

The current study found that the molecular diagnosis of IgE-sensitization to Hymenoptera venoms is valuable for the detection of culprit venom, especially in patients with dual or triple-sensitization. As the ALEX results demonstrated, mono- and double-sensitization to Hymenoptera venoms were observed in 22 and 6 patients, respectively. The most common Hymenoptera causing anaphylaxis were HB and YJ. Ves v 1 + /Ves v 5 + and Api m 1 + /Api m 2−/Api m 10− patterns were also identified as major sensitization patterns in these patients.

In our study, as well as the studies of Hirata et al., Seob Shin et al., and Bemanian et al., males were more frequent than females [18,19,20]. Gelincik et al. found that males and females had the same prevalence of Hymenoptera venom allergies in Istanbul [21]. This difference may be attributed to the culture effect such as the influence of wearing a hijab on women in some countries, and the higher frequency of men in difficult jobs such as agriculture, animal husbandry, and beekeeping. According to the Blank et al. study, being male could be considered a predictor of having positive IgE specific to HB [22]. Another study suggested that being male and older were risk factors for developing severe allergic reactions to Hymenoptera [23].

As the findings demonstrated, twelve patients (37.5%) reported a history of atopic diseases, most of which were allergic rhinitis (31.3%). This prevalence of allergic rhinitis is a little higher than in the general population (28.3%) [24]. In a study by Yavuz et al., bronchial asthma and allergic rhinitis were identified in 25% and 17.1% of children with Hymenoptera venom allergies, respectively [25]. As mentioned in the literature, atopic diseases could not be considered a predictor of developing hypersensitivity to Hymenoptera sting [21, 26]. Compared with individuals with mono-sensitization to Hymenoptera venom, an insignificantly higher prevalence of atopic diseases (28.8% vs. 42.1%) was observed in patients with dual-sensitization [27]. Although our study found a lower prevalence of atopic diseases in patients with dual or triple sensitization to Hymenoptera venom.

Ten (31.3%) patients reported a bite on the head and neck. The bite mainly affected the neck and upper limbs, although other limbs were involved as well. A study by Bemanian et al. reported that bites most frequently occurred in the upper limbs, followed by the head and neck [28]. The findings of the current study are consistent with those of previous studies regarding the major clinical manifestations [19, 25].

The lower sensitivity of SPT for Hymenoptera venoms leads to the use of the intradermal test to identify offending venom [29]. Based on our inclusion criteria and the intradermal test results, double and triple-sensitizated patients were included. Consequently, it is difficult to determine the genuine insect for allergen-specific immunotherapy. Using recombinant species-specific major molecules in Hymenoptera venoms and CCD inhibition may improve the ability to distinguish dual or triple sensitization from cross-reactivity [27].

In our study, 19 patients were identified with IgE sensitization to Apis mellifera components, of which 42.1% showed IgE-sensitization to more than one component, 57.9% to only one component, and 15.8% to all three components. In Kohler et al.’s study, IgE-sensitization to more than one molecule was 74.3%, while 9.7% showed positive specific IgE to all the studied allergenic molecules of Apis mellifera [30]. A 59.4% prevalence of IgE sensitization to at least one molecule of HB was found in the present study, while Kohler reported an 89.6% prevalence [30]. This difference could result from the difference in sample size and the number of allergenic molecules investigated between the two studies. As Bilo et al. stated, the evaluation of more allergic molecules increases the detection of the offending Hymenoptera [31]. According to our study, the most common sensitization pattern in HB-allergic patients was exclusive sensitization to Api m1 (Api m 1+/Api m 2−/Api m 10−) (25%). The next patterns were Api m 1+/Api m 2−/Api m 10+, Api m 1−/Api m 2−/Api m 10+ and Api m 1+/Api m 2+/Api m 10 + . In Kohler et al.’s study, these patterns were 11.81%, 3.47%, 4.17%, and 1.39%, respectively, although they also studied other molecules, including Api m 3, Api m 4 and Api m 5. Api m1+/Api m 2+/Api m 3+/Api m 4−/Api m 5+/Api m 10+ and Api m 1+ exclusive pattern was more common in the Kohler study [30].

Among 32 patients with positive intradermal reactions to Yellow Jacket Venom Protein extract, three showed positive specific IgE to whole extract from Vespula vulgaris in the ALEX test, so the intradermal test and whole extract of YJ in the ALEX test have poor agreement in this study. It could be due to the low amount of Ves v 1 and Ves v 5 molecules in the whole extract of YJ in the ALEX. Eikan et al. obtained an agreement of 79% between the skin tests and specific IgE assay [32]. The sensitivity of the specific IgE assay to the whole extract of YJ (Vespula spp.) was 83% using ImmunoCAP [33]. The differences between our study and other studies may be due to differences in measurement tools or the small sample size. On the other hand, different time intervals between the bite and the specific IgE assay can affect the results [34]. An evaluation of the allergenic components of Vespula vulgaris enabled us to identify seventeen patients while three of them were only positive in the whole extract in ALEX.

In the study of Strum et al., the molecular diagnosis was performed on 26 patients with allergy to YJ that showed no positive specific IgE to YJ whole extract. It's interesting that their study demonstrated positive specific IgE to rVes v 5 in 17 subjects (65.4%) [35]. In another study by Gawik et al., among 8 patients with negative sIgE to the whole extract of Vespula, 3 and 2 showed IgE sensitization to rVes v 5 and rVes v 1, respectively [36]. In our study, seven out of 29 patients with negative sIgE to the whole extract of Vespula vulgaris (Ves v) in ALEX had dual-sensitization to Ves v 5 and Ves v 1. Additionally, nine patients with a positive intradermal test for YJV showed a Ves v 5+/Ves v 1+ pattern. These variations may be explained by methodological or geographic differences as well as low levels of some molecules in the whole extract of YJ [37]. According to the Vos et al. study, ImmunoCAP showed positive sIgE to YJV whole extract in 83.4% of patients with allergy to YJ. Moreover, IgE sensitization to Ves v1 and Ves v 5 was identified in 44.2% and 89.9% of patients, respectively. Overall, 96.1% of patients were identified as the result of sIgE assays for Ves v 1 and Vesv5 [33]. In the same way, the present study identified 17 patients with sIgE to Ves v, Ves v 1 and Ves v 5.

In our study, the prevalence of Pol d 5 sensitization was 21.9% while Bilo et al. reported a prevalence of 69–72% [31]. This difference could be due to the geographic distribution of Hymenoptera and, of course, the sample size in our study. Furthermore, major allergen of Iranian patients may be different with other populations. In some studies, subjects with a positive skin test or sIgE to the whole extract were considered the baseline group. By contrast, our study included only patients who had positive skin tests. In Shin et al.’s study, there was a positive correlation between sIgE to the extract and the allergenic molecule of Pol d (r = 0.757) [19].

Molecular profiles and patient reports of Hymenoptera stings revealed that 15 patients had a history of stings along with IgE positive to allergenic molecules of the same reported insect. Despite a moderate agreement between the results of a specific IgE assay and the patients’ ability to identify offending insects [38], it could not alone help identify the causative insect. In the Reisman et al. study, among 46 patients with positive sIgE to bees, 26 individuals recognized the culprit Hymenoptera [38].

Although Api m 1 and Api m 2 seem to be associated with less severe anaphylactic reactions, there was no association between IgE sensitization to bee extracts and molecules and anaphylactic reaction severity. Gawlik et al. explored a positive correlation between specific IgE to Ves v 1, specific IgE to the whole extract of YJ and HB, and Api m1 with the severity of anaphylaxis [36].

As the findings of allergic sensitization to HB, YJ and PW extracts demonstrated, among 32 patients with dual or triple-sensitization in the intradermal test, 15 (46.9%), 1 (3.12%) and 2 (6.3%) patients showed exclusive sensitization to the whole extracts of Api m, Ves v, or Pol d, respectively, while 4 (12.6%) patients revealed positive specific IgE to two Hymenoptera. Following the molecular diagnosis with the ALEX test, 14 (43.8%) and 8 (25%) patients exclusively showed positive sensitization to Api m and Ves v components, and 9 subjects (28.1%) demonstrated allergic sensitization to allergenic components of two or three types of Hymenoptera (Table 2). In the study of Selb et al. 98 and 69 (70.4%) out of 255 patients showed dual-sensitization to allergen extract and allergenic molecules, respectively [39]. In our study, nine patients (30%) remained dual or triple-sensitized according to the ALEX test using both whole extract and components. This difference could be due to the evaluation of more molecules in the Selb et al. study [39]. Although, we should take note of the fact that all participants had positive allergic sensitization to the extracts in their study.

As the current study results demonstrated, a meaningful correlation was observed between sIgE to Api m and Api m 1 and Api m 10; Ves v and Ves v 5; and Pol d, and Pol d 5. Similarly, Hirata et al., study indicated the same result between Api m and its molecules, especially Api m 1 (r = 0.98) [20].

In light of the high cost of venom immunotherapy (VIT), especially for two or three venoms [40] and systemic anaphylactic reactions [41], the molecular diagnosis could help patients in reducing these issues. Using the intradermal test alone, patients would have to undergo VIT for at least two or three Hymenoptera, while the molecular diagnosis significantly decreases the number of VITs. Using ALEX, we observed mono- and double-sensitization to Hymenoptera venom in 22 and 6 patients, respectively. Moreover, this test meaningfully improved immunotherapy specificity towards related venom. Inhibiting cross-reactive carbohydrates in ALEX and identifying cross-reactive proteins could explain the differences between the two methods.

Since all cases of Polistes dominulus sensitization was associated with Vespula vulgaris sensitization, cross-reactivity is likely. Six patients showed positive specific IgE to Ves v 5 and Pol d 5. Ves v 5 is probably the cross-reactive component. The results are consistent with a Perez study that points out their high homology [8]. By identifying and evaluating genuine molecules of Polistes dominulus, true sensitization could occur.

We did face two limitations in our study, which were that some molecules, such as Api m 3 and Api m 5, were not evaluated and that the sample size was small. Expanding the repertoire of allergenic molecules could improve the effectiveness of this method for diagnosing Hymenoptera hypersensitivity.

Conclusion

These results suggest that the molecular diagnosis of IgE-sensitization to Hymenoptera venoms is useful, especially for patients with dual or triple-sensitization. As a result of component-resolved diagnostics with ALEX, CCD markers are inhibited, cross-reactive molecules are identified, and culprit venom can be more accurately diagnosed. Moreover, VIT costs are minimized for patients with Hymenoptera allergies.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Peters RS, Krogmann L, Mayer C, Donath A, Gunkel S, Meusemann K, et al. Evolutionary history of the hymenoptera. Curr Biol CB. 2017;27(7):1013–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2017.01.027.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bilò MB, Tontini C, Martini M, Corsi A, Agolini S, Antonicelli L. Clinical aspects of hymenoptera venom allergy and venom immunotherapy. Eur Ann Allergy Clin Immunol. 2019;51(6):244–58. https://doi.org/10.23822/EurAnnACI.1764-1489.113.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Sahiner UM, Durham SR. Hymenoptera venom allergy: how does venom immunotherapy prevent anaphylaxis from bee and wasp stings? Front Immunol. 2019;10:1959. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2019.01959.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Schiener M, Graessel A, Ollert M, Schmidt-Weber CB, Blank S. Allergen-specific immunotherapy of Hymenoptera venom allergy—also a matter of diagnosis. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2017;13(10):2467–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/21645515.2017.1334745.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Perez-Riverol A, Campos Pereira FD, Musacchio Lasa A, Romani Fernandes LG, Santos-Pinto JR, Justo-Jacomini DL, et al. Molecular cloning, expression and IgE-immunoreactivity of phospholipase A1, a major allergen from Polybia paulista (Hymenoptera: Vespidae) venom. Toxicon Off J Int Soc Toxinol. 2016;124:44–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxicon.2016.11.006.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Matricardi PM, Kleine-Tebbe J, Hoffmann HJ, Valenta R, Hilger C, Hofmaier S, et al. EAACI molecular allergology user’s guide. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2016;27(S23):1–250. https://doi.org/10.1111/pai.12563.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Antolín-Amérigo D, Ruiz-León B, Boni E, Alfaya-Arias T, Álvarez-Mon M, Barbarroja-Escudero J, et al. Component-resolved diagnosis in hymenoptera allergy. Allergol Immunopathol. 2018;46(3):253–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aller.2017.05.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Perez-Riverol A, Palma MS, Jakob T. Current challenges in molecular diagnostics of insect venom allergy. Allergo J Int. 2020;29(3):79–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40629-020-00119-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Heffler E, Puggioni F, Peveri S, Montagni M, Canonica GW, Melioli G. Extended IgE profile based on an allergen macroarray: a novel tool for precision medicine in allergy diagnosis. World Allergy Organ J. 2018;11(1):7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40413-018-0186-3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Available from: http://www.allergen.org.

  11. Krishna MT, Ewan PW, Diwakar L, Durham SR, Frew AJ, Leech SC, et al. Diagnosis and management of hymenoptera venom allergy: British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology (BSACI) guidelines. Clin Exp Allergy. 2011;41(9):1201–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2222.2011.03788.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Simons FE, Ardusso LR, Bilò MB, El-Gamal YM, Ledford DK, Ring J, et al. World allergy organization guidelines for the assessment and management of anaphylaxis. World Allergy Organiz J. 2011;4(2):13–37. https://doi.org/10.1097/WOX.0b013e318211496c.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Mueller HL. Diagnosis and treatment of insect sensitivity. J Asthma Res. 1966;3(4):331–3. https://doi.org/10.3109/02770906609106941.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Burks AW, Holgate ST, O’Hehir RE, Bacharier LB, Broide DH, Hershey GK, et al. Middleton’s allergy E-Book: principles and practice. 9th ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Quirt JA, Wen X, Kim J, Herrero AJ, Kim HL. Venom allergy testing: is a graded approach necessary? Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2016;116(1):49–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anai.2015.10.007.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bemanian MH, Ghelichi-Ghojogh M, Aghapour SA. A new approach to eliminate hymenoptera venom grading sensitization test in the North Iran: cross-sectional study. Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2024;38(1):6–9. https://doi.org/10.47176/mjiri.38.2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Bardou P, Mariette J, Escudié F, Djemiel C, Klopp C. jvenn: an interactive Venn diagram viewer. BMC Bioinformatics. 2014;15(1):293. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-15-293.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Bemanian MH, Arshi S, Nabavi M, Fallahpour M, Aarabi M, Karbasi M, et al. Anaphylactic reaction to a bee's sting in rural areas of Gorgan City: the first epidemiological study of anaphylaxis due to hymenoptera in Iran. 2019.

  19. Shin YS, Liu JN, Hur G-Y, Hwang E-K, Nam YH, Jin HJ, et al. Clinical features and the diagnostic value of component allergen-specific IgE in hymenoptera venom allergy. Allergy Asthma Immunol Res. 2012;4(5):284–9. https://doi.org/10.4168/aair.2012.4.5.284.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Hirata H, Sato K, Ogasawara T, Funakoshi T, Shima D, Tatewaki M, et al. Sensitization to Api m 1, Api m 2, and Api m 4 in Japanese beekeepers who had experienced systemic reactions to honeybee stings. Allergol Int. 2019;68(2):261–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alit.2018.08.008.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Gelincik A, İşsever H, Unal D, Işık E, Demirturk M, Gül H, et al. The prevalence of Hymenoptera venom allergy in adults: the results of a very crowded city in Euroasia. Allergol Int. 2015;64(1):35–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alit.2014.10.001.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Blank S, Haemmerle S, Jaeger T, Russkamp D, Ring J, Schmidt-Weber CB, et al. Prevalence of Hymenoptera venom allergy and sensitization in the population-representative German KORA cohort. Allergo J Int. 2019;28(6):183–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40629-018-0089-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ruëff F. Natural history and long-term follow-up of Hymenoptera allergy. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020;20(5):445–51. https://doi.org/10.1097/aci.0000000000000671.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. ShokouhiShoormasti R, Pourpak Z, Fazlollahi MR, Kazemnejad A, Nadali F, Ebadi Z, et al. The prevalence of allergic rhinitis, allergic conjunctivitis, atopic dermatitis and asthma among adults of Tehran. Iran J Public Health. 2018;47(11):1749–55.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Yavuz ST, Sahiner UM, Buyuktiryaki B, Soyer OU, Sackesen C, Sekerel BE, et al. Clinical features of children with venom allergy and risk factors for severe systemic reactions. Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 2013;160(3):313–21. https://doi.org/10.1159/000341666.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Blank S, Haemmerle S, Jaeger T, Russkamp D, Ring J, Schmidt-Weber CB, et al. Prevalence of Hymenoptera venom allergy and sensitization in the population-representative German KORA cohort. Allergo J. 2019;28(6):42–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s15007-019-1916-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Müller U, Schmid-Grendelmeier P, Hausmann O, Helbling A. IgE to recombinant allergens Api m 1, Ves v 1, and Ves v 5 distinguish double sensitization from crossreaction in venom allergy. Allergy. 2012;67(8):1069–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1398-9995.2012.02847.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Bemanian MH, Arshi S, Nabavi M, Fallahpour M, Aarabi M, Karbasi M, et al. Anaphylactic reaction to bee stings in the rural areas of Gorgan City: Iran’s first epidemiological study of hymenoptera-induced anaphylaxis. J Pediatr Rev. 2019;7(4):239–48. https://doi.org/10.32598/jpr.7.4.239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Plunkett G, Jacobson RS, Golden DBK. Hymenoptera venoms used to produce allergen extracts. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2017;118(6):649–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anai.2016.05.027.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Köhler J, Blank S, Müller S, Bantleon F, Frick M, Huss-Marp J, et al. Component resolution reveals additional major allergens in patients with honeybee venom allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2014;133(5):1383–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaci.2013.10.060.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Bilò MB, Ollert M, Blank S. The role of component-resolved diagnosis in Hymenoptera venom allergy. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol. 2019;19(6):614–22. https://doi.org/10.1097/aci.0000000000000574.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Eiken P, Mosbech H, Jacobsen L, Larsen P, Scharling B, Svendsen UG, et al. Comparison between two different assays for measurements of allergen-specific IgE and skin prick test in the diagnosis of insect venom allergy. Allergy. 1992;47(5):495–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1398-9995.1992.tb00671.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Vos B, Köhler J, Müller S, Stretz E, Ruëff F, Jakob T. Spiking venom with rVes v 5 improves sensitivity of IgE detection in patients with allergy to Vespula venom. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2013;131(4):1225–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaci.2012.07.041.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Ono T, Yoshida M, Nakazono N. Hymenoptera stings and serum venom-specific IgE in Japanese Pest-control operators. Environ Health Prev Med. 1998;2(4):172–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02931697.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Sturm GJ, Biló MB, Bonadonna P, Hemmer W, Caruso B, Bokanovic D, et al. Ves v 5 can establish the diagnosis in patients without detectable specific IgE to wasp venom and a possible north-south difference in Api m 1 sensitization in Europe. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2012;130(3):817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaci.2012.05.047.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Gawlik R, Marcak M, Bożek A. Importance of wasp and honey bee recombinant allergens in the diagnosis of hymenoptera venom anaphylaxis. Alergoprofil. 2019;15(1):11–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Jakob T, Müller U, Helbling A, Spillner E. Component resolved diagnostics for hymenoptera venom allergy. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol. 2017;17(5):363–72. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACI.0000000000000390.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Reisman RE, Wypych J, Arbesman CE. Stinging insect allergy: detection and clinical significance of venom IgE antibodies. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1975;56(6):443–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/0091-6749(75)90062-7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Šelb J, BidovecStojković U, Bajrović N, Kopač P, Eržen R, Zidarn M, et al. Limited ability of recombinant Hymenoptera venom allergens to resolve IgE double sensitization. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2018;6(6):2118–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaip.2018.04.045.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Ludman SW, Boyle RJ. Stinging insect allergy: current perspectives on venom immunotherapy. J Asthma Allergy. 2015;8:75–86. https://doi.org/10.2147/JAA.S62288.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Jovanovic D, Peric-Popadic A, Andrejevic S, Stojanovic M, Bonaci-Nikolic B. The Diagnostic Importance of Recombinant Allergen IgE Testing in Patients with Hymenoptera Venom Allergy: Comparison of Two Methods. Iran J Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2021; 7;20(4):413–422. https://doi.org/10.18502/ijaai.v20i4.6951.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the Iran University of Medical Sciences.

Funding

This study was supported by the Iran University of Medical Sciences.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Rasool-E-Akram Hospital, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

    Mohammad Hassan Bemanian, Saba Arshi, Sima Shokri, Morteza Fallahpour, Mohammad Nabavi & Fatemeh Zaremehrjardi

  2. Immunology, Asthma and Allergy Research Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

    Raheleh Shokouhi Shoormasti & Mahsa Jafari

  3. Children’s Medical Center, Pediatrics Center of Excellence, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

    Raheleh Shokouhi Shoormasti & Mahsa Jafari

  4. Clinical Research Development Center, Imam Reza Hospital, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran

    Fatemeh Zaremehrjardi

Authors
  1. Mohammad Hassan Bemanian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Raheleh Shokouhi Shoormasti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Saba Arshi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mahsa Jafari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sima Shokri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Morteza Fallahpour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Mohammad Nabavi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Fatemeh Zaremehrjardi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

MHB and FZ contributed in conception and design; MHB, RShSh, SA, MJ, SSh, MF, MN and FZ contributed in the acquisition of data; RShSh and MJ performed the experiments; MHB, RShSh and FZ contributed in analysis; MHB, RShSh, SA, SSh, MF, MN and FZ contributed in the interpretation of data, RShSh and FZ drafted the manuscript. All authors reviewed manuscript critically for important intellectual content, approved the final version of the manuscript and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fatemeh Zaremehrjardi.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate:

Ethics Committee of Iran University of Medical Sciences approved this study (No.: IR.IUMS.FMD.REC.1398.321). A written informed consent was taken from all participants.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bemanian, M.H., Shokouhi Shoormasti, R., Arshi, S. et al. The role of molecular diagnosis in anaphylactic patients with dual or triple-sensitization to Hymenoptera venoms. Allergy Asthma Clin Immunol 20, 22 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13223-024-00885-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13223-024-00885-9

Keywords

Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology

ISSN: 1710-1492

Contact us