Available via license: CC BY-NC 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
ISSN 1330-9862 minireview
(FTB-3165)
Allergenic Proteins in Foods and Beverages
Ana Barros1* and Fernanda Cosme2
1CITAB – Centre for the Research and Technology of Agro-Environmental and Biological Sciences,
Chemistry Department, University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro, PT-5001-801 Vila Real, Portugal
2IBB/CGB-UTAD – Institute for Biotechnology and Bioengineering, Centre of Genomics and
Biotechnology, School of Life Sciences and Environment, Department of Biology and Environment,
University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro, P.O. Box 1013, PT-5001-801 Vila Real, Portugal
Received: August 16, 2012
Accepted: February 25, 2013
Summary
Food allergies can be defined as immunologically mediated hypersensitivity reactions;
therefore, a food allergy is also known as food hypersensitivity. The reactions are caused
by the immune system response to some food proteins. The eight most common food
allergens are proteins from milk, eggs, peanuts, tree nuts, soya, wheat, fish and shellfish.
However, many other foods have been identified as allergens for some people, such as
certain fruits or vegetables and seeds. It is now recognized that food allergens are an
important food safety issue. A food allergy occurs when the body’s immune system reacts
to otherwise harmless substances in certain foods. For these reasons, one of the require-
ments from the European Union is that allergenic food ingredients should be labelled in
order to protect allergic consumers. According to the European Federation of Allergy and
Airways Diseases Patients’ Associations, about 8 % of children and 4 % of adults suffer
from some type of food allergy.
Food allergies often develop during infant or early childhood ages, affecting mainly
the gastrointestinal tract (stomach and intestines). In some cases, the allergy may persist in
adult age, for example, coeliac disease, which is an abnormal immune response to certain
proteins present in gluten, a type of protein composite found in wheat and barley. Almost
all allergens are proteins, and highly sensitive analytical methods have been developed to
detect traces of these compounds in food, such as electrophoretic and immunological meth-
ods, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis.
The purpose of this review is to describe the allergenic components of the most com-
mon causes of food allergies, followed by a brief discussion regarding their importance in
the food industry and for consumer safety. The most important methods used to detect
allergenicity in food will also be discussed.
Key words: food allergy, allergen identification, food proteins
Introduction
The term food allergy is commonly used for any ad-
verse reaction, immediate and abnormal, to a harmless
food or food component normally tolerated (1,2). The sub-
stances that cause this abnormal reaction of the defence
(immune) system are called allergens (1). There are two
153
A. BARROS and F. COSME: Allergenic Proteins in Food, Food Technol. Biotechnol. 51 (2) 153–158 (2013)
*Corresponding author; Phone: ++351 259 350 283; Fax: ++351 259 350 480; E-mail: abarros@utad.pt
different types of allergic food reactions involving the
immune defence system, namely reactions that are im-
munoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated and non-IgE-mediated,
or a combination of both (3,4).The majority are IgE-me-
diated, making the non-IgE-mediated reactions to food
scarce (5). The incidence of allergies continues to increase
year after year, with a higher incidence in developed
countries (6,7) and, apparently, involves not only diet and
environmental factors, but also the interaction between
these and genetic factors (8).
Food allergies can have a significant impact on life
quality in a profoundly negative way, restricting food
choices and increasing the cost, thus causing anxiety
(9,10). Allergy sufferers sometimes have difficulty in
managing their social life, a fact which has an important
effect on family relationships, since they frequently face
isolation (9–11).
Most common foods are generally safe at all levels
of intake for most people (in a percentage of almost 95
%), and are nutritionally valuable (12). Food allergens as
contaminants are only dangerous for people with a spe-
cific allergy, and can even be lethal (13). In general, the
rates and the prevalence of food allergy are not precise;
nevertheless, even in small amounts, it can sometimes
induce a wide variety of hypersensivity reactions (10).
Recent studies have shown that approx. 1 in 20 children
under the age of 5 and approx. 1 in 25 adults are allergic
to one type of food at least (1).
During the last two decades, food allergies have been
recognized as a rising problem for public health (14). It
is, therefore, essential to have access to information about
potential allergens contained in a food product. Conse-
quently, methods for allergen detection are needed and
legislation for food product labelling must be improved
(15). The declaration of certain allergenic ingredients is
obligatory and clearly defined in Directives 2003/89/EC
(16) and 2005/26/EC (17).
Allergenicity of Food Proteins
Although any food protein can be potentially aller-
genic, only some proteins cause allergic reactions. There-
fore, food allergies can be caused by various food proteins,
those from animal origin, such as from milk (casein, b-lac-
toglobulin, a-lactalbumin), eggs (ovomucoid, ovalbumin,
conalbumin, lysozyme), fish (parvalbumin), and shell-
fish (tropomyosin), or from plant origin such as peanuts
(7S seed storage globulin, 11S seed storage globulin, 2S
albumin), tree nuts (2S albumin, 7S storage globulin, 11S
seed storage globulin, non-specific lipid transfer prote-
ins, Bet v 1 homologue), soya (7S seed storage globulin,
11S seed storage globulin, Bet v 1 homologue, inactive
papain-related thiol protease), seeds (2S albumin) and
wheat (seed storage prolamins, a-amylase/trypsin inhi-
bitors, glycosylated peroxidase) (11,18). Furthermore, an
allergenic protein can only induce an allergic reaction in
individuals sensitive to this allergen. Additionally, aller-
gic incidence is dependent on the consumer’s age; the
foods related to allergic reactions in children are mostly
eggs and milk; adults usually experience allergic reac-
tion to the food that tends to continue beyond infancy,
these are mostly caused by peanuts, tree nuts, seafood
and fruit (7,11).
Since the allergy to cow’s milk has become the most
common allergy in early childhood, it is important to es-
tablish the role of each of the milk proteins in allergic re-
actions, but this is still a controversial topic (19). Milk
proteins are composed of asl-casein, as2-casein, b-casein,
k-casein, b-lactoglobulin and a-lactalbumin (20). Al-
though the importance of the most abundant proteins is
recognized, those found in smaller quantities have a role
in determining the extent of allergies. Casein fractions
are well-known allergenic proteins of cow’s milk, but in
this case the identification of individual fractions re-
sponsible for this aspect is still controversial (19). In the
case of eggs, the allergy is most frequent in children. Re-
garding these two allergenic foods, milk and eggs, the
allergy can be outgrown during school age. Ovomucoid
and ovalbumin represent 10 and 50 % of egg white pro-
teins, respectively, and are the major egg allergens. In
the egg white, lysozyme is also to be considered, for it
represents a high risk due to its wide employment in the
food industry (cheese preparations and wine) and large
populations might be allergic to this enzyme (21,22).
In the case of fish, more than 20 proteins, mainly
parvalbumins, have been classified as the major aller-
gens. These proteins are found in various fish species
such as cod, salmon, mackerel and herring (23,24). Con-
sumers that are allergic to fish must avoid not only all
kinds of fish, but also fish products, as even a low amount
in their diet can cause an allergic reaction (25). The ma-
jor allergenic protein in shellfish and seafood is tropo-
myosin, a heat-stable protein. It is found in various types
of seafood, for example, in squids, lobsters, crabs and
shrimps.
In the case of peanuts, contrary to other allergens
such as milk or eggs, the allergic reaction tends to per-
sist for life (25), and no significant differences have been
observed among peanut varieties concerning allergic pro-
perties. Additionally, during production processes, con-
taminations with peanuts are common; therefore, unde-
clared peanut traces can be found in processed food
products (26).
Food processing can change the allergenicity of cer-
tain food proteins, particularly from fruits and vegeta-
bles, which become less allergenic when processed; how-
ever, the allergenicity of other foods remains unchanged.
These differences are related to the thermostability of
the proteins involved in the allergic reactions, some of
which are sufficiently changed by heating so that they
no longer cause an allergic reaction. According to Paschke
(13),the combination of enzymatic and heat treatment
decreased the allergic potential of hen´s egg about 100-
-fold. Different food processing methods have diverse
effects on food protein structure; therefore, some food
processing methods may increase, decrease or have no
effect on allergenicity of specific food proteins, since chem-
ical or conformational changes can be induced during
industrial food processing. The degree of maturity of some
fruits and vegetables can also affect their level of aller-
genicity.
Allergies have increased in the last years, particu-
larly in the developed countries. The main reason for the
increase is that the human immune system is less ex-
posed to infection agents during infancy, as a consequence
of more hygienic sanitary environment and modern me-
dical practices such as immunizations. Therefore, our
immune system does not need to recognize and fight the
infection agents, as it would have to do if it was ex-
posed to them. This theoretical explanation is given in
the 'hygiene hypothesis' (27).
154 A. BARROS and F. COSME: Allergenic Proteins in Food, Food Technol. Biotechnol. 51 (2) 153–158 (2013)
Allergenicity of Protein Processing Aids Used
in Beverages
Beverage production usually involves protein fining,
one of the many processing techniques used to clarify
and stabilize beverages. Proteins derived from bovine
milk (casein and potassium caseinate), hen eggs (egg al-
bumin and lysozyme), and fish (fish gelatine and isin-
glass from fish swim bladder) are used as processing
aids. These proteins coagulate with the colloids present
in the beverages, resulting in flocculation and sedimen-
tation of these substances. They also eliminate the insol-
uble and unstable colloidal substances and thus improve
the beverage sensorial properties. Phenolic compounds
such as tannins and monomeric flavonols responsible
for astringency or bitterness are also removed. Through
the European Union (EU) legislation, Directives 2000/
13/EC (28) and 2003/89/EC (16), the listing of all aller-
genic ingredients specified in the Annex IIIa that are
used in processed food became mandatory in order to
get a higher level of protection for allergic individuals.
After that, the European Community issued Directive
2007/68/EC (29), which states that 'any substance used
in production of a foodstuff and still present in the fin-
ished product' has to be declared on the label, especially
if it originates from allergenic ingredients. This was ini-
tially mandated to take effect on 31 May 2009, but had
been suspended until 30 June 2012 due to the limited
scientific data available concerning their actual perma-
nence as residual proteins (30,31).
Milk casein is a heterogeneous group of four major
phosphoproteins and phosphoglycoproteins whose mo-
lecular mass (Mr) ranges from 11.6 to 24.1 kDa with an
average isoelectric point (pI) of 4.6 (32,33). Likewise, egg
white is composed of diverse proteins, with ovalbumin
(phosphoglycoprotein) representing the main protein,
having a Mrof 45 kDa and an isoelectric point of 4.6
(34,35). Isinglass, a product obtained from fish swim blad-
der, is used as fining agent, comprising three hydroxy-
proline-rich polypeptide chains in a helical conformation,
mainly composed of collagen with a high molecular mass
(Mr=300 kDa) (36). It seems that due to the anatomical
location and tissue composition of the fish swim bladder
of different species, isinglass probably does not contain
the major allergenic fish protein, parvalbumin (Mr=10–13
kDa) (37). Lysozyme (Mr=14.3 kDa; pI=10.7) can also pre-
sent a risk for consumers allergic to hen’s egg (22,35). The
major allergenic component of bovine milk is casein, as
described by Docena et al. (38)andLamet al. (39). Nev-
ertheless, there is no indication of the existence of detect-
able casein residues in the final wines able to cause
allergic reactions. It is known that casein is insoluble at
the wine pH. Consequently, casein is considered to be
totally coagulated and sedimented (40). Kirschner et al.
(41) demonstrated that wines treated with fining agents
containing proteins from egg, milk or fish in commercial
concentrations were tolerated by consumers allergic to
these proteins. Rolland et al. (42) investigated if wines
treated with fining agents containing proteins from egg,
milk or fish could incite allergic reactions (anaphylaxis)
in consumers with confirmed immunoglobulin E–medi-
ated food allergy. After performing a double-blind, pla-
cebo-controlled trial, these authors concluded that no
allergic reaction was induced by the consumption of wine
produced with the proteins mentioned previously, accord-
ing to good manufacturing practice, which suggests that
the traces of fining agents remaining in the wine after
treatments are insignificant. Vassilopoulou et al. (43) also
concluded that even if traces of residues of casein, isin-
glass or egg proteins are found in the treated wine, the
risks for allergic consumers are very low. It is known that
if the wine is manufactured according to good oeno-
logical practices, the amount of processing aids that re-
main in the finished wine is negligible. Nevertheless, the
production of allergen-free food products has become
important due to consumer safety concerns and new in-
ternational labelling regulations. Therefore, research has
been carried out in order to search for alternatives to al-
lergenic proteins (43–47).
Methods to Detect the Allergenicity and
Antigenicity of Protein Residues in Food
and Beverages
The precise and sensitive methods for the detection
and quantification of food allergens are essential to the
food industry to guarantee the correct labelling of their
products in order to protect allergic consumers. All sub-
stances purposely added to food products have to be la-
belled according to the European Food Labelling Direc-
tive. At the same time, in order to control allergens in
foods, it is also important to know what quantity of an
allergen can trigger an allergic reaction in an individual.
However, the threshold at which all allergens can cause
allergic reactions (lowest adverse effect level observed
for peanuts: 0.25–10 mg of protein, soya: 88–522 mg of
protein, tree nuts: 0.02–7.5 mg of protein, egg: 0.13–1 mg
of protein, milk: 0.36-3.6 mg of protein, fish: 1–100 mg of
protein (48)) is not well known; therefore, it is not clear
how sensitive the detection methods need to be. Addi-
tionally, allergens frequently exist in trace quantities,
making detection and quantification in food products
difficult, and this difficulty is increased in processed
food products as the food matrix frequently camouflages
them.
To detect traces of allergens, highly sensitive analy-
tical methods have been developed, using either enzyme
immunoassay methods based on antibodies or, to a lesser
extent, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) or the electro-
phoretic method (sodium dodecyl sulphate polyacryl-
amide gel electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE)) (6,49). Allergenic
proteins able to induce allergic reaction in their native
structural state or after chemical or conformational chang-
es induced by the manufacturing treatments can nowa-
days be identified by using immunochemical methods
such as enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA).
Sandwich and competitive ELISA methods, and dipstick
assays or lateral-flow devices (LFD) have been devel-
oped for several food allergens (37,50). Concerning the
detection of peanut, tree nut and soya bean proteins,
real time PCR and sandwich ELISA methods have been
developed with a limit of detection lower than 10 ppm
for peanuts in processed food (26). For allergenic fish
protein, electrophoretic techniques, ELISA, PCR and ma-
trix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight
mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) are currently used
155
A. BARROS and F. COSME: Allergenic Proteins in Food, Food Technol. Biotechnol. 51 (2) 153–158 (2013)
(37).Regarding wine samples, the method of widespread
use for the detection of fining proteins is based on anti-
body recognition. Antibody-based ELISA is commercial-
ly used for different allergenic targets, and this method
has the advantage of being fast and usually appropriate
for routine analysis. However, this technique suffers
from numerous restrictions since the target protein is in-
directly detected. In numerous matrices antibodies rec-
ognize analogous structures not important for food al-
lergy, which give a positive and indistinguishable signal
from those of the target allergen. This is called cross-re-
activity and can lead to false negative results (51). Sev-
eral ELISA test formats have recently been developed for
detection of casein, wheat gluten, parvalbumin, peanut
and ovalbumin residues (37,40,52–56), with the lowest lim-
it of detection equal to 8 ng/mL for casein, 100 ng/mL
for parvalbumin, 8 ng/mL for peanut and 1 ng/mL for
ovalbumin (52). A quantitative indirect ELISA method for
the determination of casein, in the range of 0.01–10 mg/L,
has been reported by Weber et al. (54). Lifrani et al. (53)
developed animal models with allergy to ovalbumin, case-
inate and isinglass, and also designed sandwich ELISA
tests specific to each protein, with the purpose of detect-
ing their residue antigenicity. A weakness of ELISA test
kits is that they only detect one allergen in each test.
Nowadays, several authors have developed procedures
for the identification of allergenic proteins in food sam-
ples using mass spectrometry (MS), expecting to over-
come certain limitations of the immunochemical assays
(56). The advantages of MS over the ELISA method are
that it is a direct detection method and can detect multi-
ple allergens in the same analysis. Monaci and van Hen-
gel (57) developed a method using solid-phase extraction
and liquid chromatography coupled with mass spectro-
metry to detect traces of three allergenic cow’s milk pro-
teins (lactalbumin and lactoglobulins aand b)inmixed
fruit juice samples. The same authors developed, for the
first time, a method based on capillary liquid chroma-
tography combined with electrospray ionization tandem
mass spectrometry (capLC–ESI-MS/MS) for the detection
and identification of casein-derived peptides in fined
white wine (58,59). More recently, a method based on
LC-ESI-high-resolution (HR)/MS analysis, using a single-
-stage Orbitrap mass spectrometer, for the quantification
of casein allergens (60) has been presented. Heick et al.
(15) developed a multi-method for the simultaneous de-
tection of seven allergens (milk, egg, soya, hazelnut,
peanut, walnut and almond) based on liquid chromato-
graphy and triple quadrupole tandem mass spectrome-
try in a multiple reaction mode with a detection concen-
tration ranging from 10 to 1000 mg/g. At the same time,
other authors (61) adopted the combinatorial peptide li-
gand library (CPLL) technology for the identification of
casein traces present in white wines. The authors dem-
onstrated that the detection limit of this technique for
casein is around 1 mg/L (62). A fast detection method
without sample preparation was developed by Zhou et
al. (63) using an extractive electrospray ionization mass
spectrometry to determine the traces of egg lysozyme
present in white wine. With this method it is possible to
detect lysozyme at 5 mg/mL, this concentration being
lower than the quantity required to cause an allergic re-
action.
Conclusions
Food allergies result from the reactions that are caused
by the immune system response to some food proteins.
The most common allergenic proteins are from milk,
eggs,peanuts,treenuts,soya,wheat,fishandshellfish.
To guarantee the safety of allergic consumers, the Euro-
pean Union requires labelling of all allergenic food in-
gredients. For that reason, highly sensitive and expedi-
tious analytical methods have been developed to detect
traces of these compounds in food.
References
1. J.A. Boyce, A. Assa’ad, A.W. Burks, S.M. Jones, H.A. Samp-
son, R.A. Wood et al., Guidelines for the diagnosis and
management of food allergy in the United States: Report
of the NIAID-sponsored expert panel, J. Allergy Clin. Im-
munol.126 (2010) S51–S58.
2. J.J.S. Chafen, S.J. Newberry, M.A. Riedl, D.M. Bravata, M.
Maglione, M.J. Suttorp et al., Diagnosing and managing
common food allergies: A systematic review, JAMA,303
(2010) 1848–1856.
3. A. Fiocchi, H.J. Schünemann, J. Brozek, P. Restani, K. Be-
yer, R. Troncone et al., Diagnosis and Rationale for Action
Against Cow’s Milk Allergy (DRACMA): A summary re-
port, J. Allergy Clin. Immunol.126 (2010) 1119–1128.
4. A. Urisu, M. Ebisawa, T. Mukoyama, A. Morikawa, N.
Kondo, Japanese guideline for food allergy, Allergol. Int.60
(2011) 221–236.
5. N.H. Eshuis: Adverse Reactions to Food, European Federa-
tion of Asthma and Allergy Associations, Leusden, The
Netherlands (1997).
6. J. Ring, K. Brockow, H. Behrendt, Adverse reactions to foods,
J. Chromatogr. B: Biomed. Sci. Appl.756 (2011) 3–10.
7. H.A. Sampson, Update on food allergy, J. Allergy Clin. Im-
munol.113 (2004) 805–819.
8. J. Shimada, H. Yano, K. Mizumachi, Trends in food allergy
research, Sci. Tech. Trends,16 (2005) 26–35.
9. M. Fernández-Rivas, S. Miles: Food Allergies: Clinical and
Psychosocial Perspectives. In: Plant Food Allergens, E.N.C.
Mills, P.R. Shewry (Eds.), Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Ox-
ford, UK (2004) pp. 1–23.
10. E.N.C. Mills, A.R. Mackie, P. Burney, K. Beyer, L. Frewer,
C. Madsen et al., The prevalence, cost and basis of food
allergy across Europe, Allergy,62 (2007) 717–722.
11. E.N.C Mills, H. Breiteneder, Food allergy and its relevance
to industrial food proteins, Biotechnol. Adv. 23 (2005) 409–
414.
12. S.K. Sathe, G.M. Sharma, Effects of food processing on
food allergens, Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 53 (2009) 970–978.
13. A. Paschke, Aspects of food processing and its effect on
allergen structure, Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 53 (2009) 959–962.
14. R. Crevel, Industrial dimensions of food allergy, Biochem.
Soc. Trans. 30 (2002) 941–944.
15. J. Heick, M. Fischer, B. Pöpping, First screening method
for the simultaneous detection of seven allergens by liquid
chromatography mass spectrometry, J. Chromatogr. A,1218
(2011) 938–943.
16. Commission Directive 2003/89/EC of the European Parlia-
ment and of the Council of 10 November 2003 amending
Directive 2000/13/EC as regards indication of the ingre-
dients present in foodstuffs, Off. J. Eur. Comm. L308 (2003)
15–18.
17. Commission Directive 2005/26/EC of 21 March 2005 estab-
lishing a list of food ingredients or substances provisionally
156 A. BARROS and F. COSME: Allergenic Proteins in Food, Food Technol. Biotechnol. 51 (2) 153–158 (2013)
excluded from Annex IIIa of Directive 2000/13/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council, Off. J. Eur. Comm.
L75 (2005) 33–34.
18. R.K. Bush, S.L. Hefle, Food allergens, Crit. Rev. Food Sci.
Nutr. (Suppl.), 36 (1996) 119–163.
19. M. Natale, C. Bisson, G. Monti, A. Peltran, L.P. Garoffo, S.
Valentini et al., Cow’s milk allergens identification by two
dimensional immunoblotting and mass spectrometry, Mol.
Nutr. Food Res. 48 (2004) 363–369.
20. H.E. Swaisgood, Review and update of casein chemistry, J.
Dairy Sci.76 (1993) 3054–3061.
21. S. Frémont, G. Kanny, J.P. Nicolas, D.A. Moneret-Vautrin,
Prevalence of lysozyme sensitization in an egg-allergic po-
pulation, Allergy,52 (1997) 224–228.
22. P. Weber, H. Kratzin, K. Brockow, J. Ring, H. Steinhart, A.
Paschke, Lysozyme in wine: A risk evaluation for consu-
mers allergic to hen’s egg, Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 53 (2009)
1469–1477.
23. L.K. Poulsen, T.K. Hansen, A. Nørdgaard, H. Vestergaard,
P.S. Skov, C. Bindslev-Jensen, Allergens from fish and egg,
Allergy (Suppl. 67), 56 (2001) 39–42.
24. Y. Hamada, H. Tanaka, S. Ishizaki, M. Ishida, Y. Nagashi-
ma, K. Shiomi, Purification, reactivity with IgE and cDNA
cloning of parvalbumin as the major allergen of mackerels,
Food Chem. Toxicol. 41 (2003) 1149–1156.
25. S.L. Taylor, S.L. Hefle, C. Bindslev-Jensen, S.A. Bock, A.W.
Burks, L. Christie et al., Factors affecting the determination
of threshold doses for allergenic foods: How much is too
much?, J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 109 (2002) 24–30.
26. O. Stephan, S. Vieths, Development of a real-time PCR and
a sandwich ELISA for detection of potentially allergenic trace
amounts of peanut (Arachis hypogaea) in processed foods, J.
Agric. Food Chem. 52 (2004) 3754–3760.
27. D.P. Strachan, Family size, infection and atopy: The first
decade of the 'hygiene hypothesis', Thorax (Suppl. 1), 55
(2000) 2–10.
28. Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 20 March on the approximation of the laws
of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation
and advertising of foodstuffs, Off. Eur. Comm. L109 (2000)
29–42.
29. Comission Directive 2007/68/EC amending Annex IIIa to
Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council as regards certain food ingredients, Off. J.
Europ. Union, L310 (2007) 11–14.
30. P.L. Teissedre, Allergens in oenological practices, Rev. Fr.
Oenol. 138 (2011) 7–8 (in French).
31. S. Taylor, Chemistry and detection of food allergens, Food
Technol. 46 (1992) 148–152.
32. E.W. Evans: Use of Milk Proteins in Formulated Food. In:
Developments in Food Proteins – 1, B.J.F. Hudson (Ed.), Ap-
plied Science Publishers, London, UK (1982) pp. 131–169.
33. P.F. Fox, P.A. Morrissey, D.M. Mulvihill: Chemical and En-
zymatic Modification of Food Proteins. In: Developments in
Food Proteins – 1, B.J.F. Hudson (Ed.), Applied Science Pub-
lishers, London, UK (1982) pp. 1–60.
34. J.C. Cheftel, J.L. Cuq, D. Lorient: Food Proteins: Biochemis-
try, Functional Properties, Nutritional Value, Technique et
Documentation Lavoisier, Paris, France (1985) pp. 306–308
(in French).
35. G.W. Froning: Nutritional and Functional Properties of Egg
Proteins. In: Developments in Food Proteins – 6, B.J.F. Hud-
son (Ed.), Applied Science Publishers, London, UK (1988)
pp. 1–34.
36. R.V. Leather, M. Sisk, C.J. Dale, A. Lyddiatt, Analysis of
the collagen and total soluble nitrogen content of isinglass
finings by polarimetry, Inst. Brew. 100 (1994) 331–334.
37. P. Weber, H. Steinhart, A. Paschke, Competitive indirect
ELISA for the determination of parvalbumins from various
fish species in food grade fish gelatins and isinglass with
PARV-19 anti-parvalbumin antibodies, J. Agric. Food Chem.
57 (2009) 11328–11334.
38. G.H. Docena, R. Fernandez, F.G. Chirdo, C.A. Fossati, Iden-
tification of casein as the major allergenic and antigenic
protein of cow’s milk, Allergy,51 (1996) 412–416.
39. H.Y. Lam, E. van Hoffen, A. Michelsen, K. Guikers, C.H.W.
van der Tas, C.A.M. Bruijnzeel-Koomen et al., Cow’s milk
allergy in adults is rare but severe: Both casein and whey
proteins are involved, Clin. Exp. Allergy,38 (2008) 995–1002.
40. P. Weber, H. Steinhart, A. Paschke, Investigation of the aller-
genic potential of wines fined with various proteinogenic
fining agents by ELISA, J. Agric. Food Chem. 55 (2007) 3127–
3133.
41. S. Kirschner, B. Belloni, C. Kugler, J. Ring, K. Brockow, Aller-
genicity of wine containing processing aids: A double-blind,
placebo-controlled food challenge, J. Investig. Allergol. Clin.
Immunol. 19 (2009) 210–217.
42. J.M. Rolland, E. Apostolou, K. Deckert, M.P. de Leon, J.A.
Douglass, I.N. Glaspole et al., Potential food allergens in
wine: Double-blind, placebo-controlled trial and basophil
activation analysis, Nutrition,22 (2006) 882–888.
43. E. Vassilopoulou, E.A. Karathanos, G. Siragakis, S. Giavi,
A. Sinaniotis, N. Douladiris et al., Risk of allergic reactions
to wine, in milk, egg and fish-allergic patients, Clin. Transl.
Allergy, 1 (2011) 10–14.
44. S.L. Walker, M.C.D. Camarena, G. Freeman, Alternatives
to isinglass for beer clarification, J. Inst. Brew. 113 (2007)
347–354.
45. S. Lefebvre, P. Restani, B. Scotti, The utilization of vege-
table proteins in oenology: Focus on the authorization and
the risk of allergy, Rev. Fr. Oenol. 202 (2003) 10–14 (in French).
46. S. Lefebvre, N. Sieczkowski, F. Vidal, Food security in oeno-
logy: The case of vegetable proteins, Rev. Fr. Oenol. 210
(2005) 23–30 (in French).
47. F. Cosme, I. Capão, L. Filipe-Ribeiro, R.N. Bennett, A. Men-
des-Faia, Evaluating potential alternatives to potassium ca-
seinate for white wine fining: Effects on physicochemical
and sensory characteristics, LWT – Food Sci. Technol. 46 (2012)
382–387.
48. Approaches to Establish Thresholds for Major Food Aller-
gens and for Gluten in Food, Food and Drug Administra-
tion, Silver Spring, MD, USA (2011) pp. 1–21.
49. P. Restani, B. Beretta, C. Ballabio, C.L. Galli, A.A.E. Ber-
telli, Evaluation by SDS-page and immunoblotting of re-
sidual antigenicity in gluten-treated wine: A preliminary
study, Int. J. Tissue React. 24 (2002) 45–51.
50. R.E. Poms, E. Anklam: Tracking and Tracing for Allergen-
-Free Food Production Chain. In: Allergy Matters: New Ap-
proaches to Allergy Prevention and Management,9, L.J.W.J.
Gilissen, H.J. Wichers, H.F.J. Savelkoul, R.J. Bogers (Eds.),
Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands (2006) pp. 79–85.
51. A.J. van Hengel, Food allergen detection methods and the
challenge to protect food-allergic consumers, Anal. Bioanal.
Chem. 389 (2007) 111–118.
52. J.M. Rolland, E. Apostolou, M.P. de Leon, C.S. Stockley,
R.E. O’Hehir, Specific and sensitive enzyme-linked immu-
nosorbent assays for analysis of residual allergenic food
proteins in commercial bottled wine fined with egg white,
milk, and nongrape-derived tannins, Agric. Food Chem. 56
(2008) 349–354.
53. A. Lifrani, J. Dos Santos, M. Dubarry, M. Rautureau, F. Bla-
chier, D. Tome, Development of animal models and sand-
wich-ELISA tests to detect the allergenicity and antigeni-
city of fining agent residues in wines, J. Agric. Food Chem.
57 (2009) 525–534.
157
A. BARROS and F. COSME: Allergenic Proteins in Food, Food Technol. Biotechnol. 51 (2) 153–158 (2013)
158 A. BARROS and F. COSME: Allergenic Proteins in Food, Food Technol. Biotechnol. 51 (2) 153–158 (2013)
54. P. Weber, H. Steinhart, A. Paschke, Determination of the
bovine food allergens casein in white wines by quantita-
tive indirect ELISA, SDS-PAGE, Western Blot and immu-
nostaining, J. Agric. Food Chem. 57 (2009) 8399–8405.
55. K. Tomkova, P. Cuhra, J. Rysova, P. Hanak, D. Gabrovska,
ELISA kit for determination of egg white proteins: Inter-
laboratory study, J. AOAC Int. 93 (2010) 1923–1929.
56. B. Simonato, F. Mainente, S. Tolin, G. Pasini, Immunochem-
ical and mass spectrometry detection of residual proteins in
gluten fined red wine, J. Agric. Food Chem. 59 (2011) 3101–3110.
57. L. Monaci, A.J. van Hengel, Development of a method for
the quantification of whey allergen traces in mixed-fruit
juices based on liquid chromatography with mass spectro-
metric detection, J. Chromatogr. A,1192 (2008) 113–120.
58. L. Monaci, A. Visconti, Mass spectrometric-based proteo-
mic methods for analysis of food allergens, Trends Anal.
Chem. 28 (2009) 581–591.
59. L. Monaci, I. Losito, F. Palmisano, A. Visconti, Identifica-
tion of allergenic milk proteins markers in fined white
wines by capillary liquid chromatography–electrospray ioni-
zation-tandem mass spectrometry, J. Chromatogr. A, 1217
(2010) 4300–4305.
60. L. Monaci, I. Losito, F. Palmisano, M. Godula, A. Visconti,
Towards the quantification of residual milk allergens in
caseinate-fined white wines using HPLC coupled with
single-stage Orbitrap mass spectrometry, Food Addit. Con-
tam. A, 28 (2011) 1304–1314.
61. A. Cereda, A.V. Kravchuk, A. D’Amato, A. Bachi, P.G. Ri-
ghetti, Proteomics of wine additives: Mining for the invi-
sible via combinatorial peptide ligand libraries, J. Proteo-
mics, 73 (2010) 1732–1739.
62. A. D’Amato, A.V. Kravchuk, A. Bachi, P.G. Righetti, Noah’s
nectar: The proteome content of a glass of red wine, J.
Proteomics, 73 (2010) 2370–2377.
63. Z. Zhou, J. Jiang, M. Li, Z.F. Zhao, J. Fu, Fast screening of
chicken egg lysozyme in white wine products by extrac-
tive electrospray ionization mass spectrometry, Chem. Res.
28 (2012) 200–203.
