↓ Skip to main content

Protease resistance of food proteins: a mixed picture for predicting allergenicity but a useful tool for assessing exposure

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical and Translational Allergy, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

13 tweeters
2 Facebook pages


8 Dimensions

Readers on

12 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Protease resistance of food proteins: a mixed picture for predicting allergenicity but a useful tool for assessing exposure
Published in
Clinical and Translational Allergy, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13601-018-0216-9
Pubmed ID

Jaap Akkerdaas, Muriel Totis, Brian Barnett, Erin Bell, Tom Davis, Thomas Edrington, Kevin Glenn, Gerson Graser, Rod Herman, Andre Knulst, Gregory Ladics, Scott McClain, Lars K. Poulsen, Rakesh Ranjan, Jean-Baptiste Rascle, Hector Serrano, Dave Speijer, Rong Wang, Lucilia Pereira Mouriès, Annabelle Capt, Ronald van Ree


Susceptibility to pepsin digestion of candidate transgene products is regarded an important parameter in the weight-of-evidence approach for allergenicity risk assessment of genetically modified crops. It has been argued that protocols used for this assessment should better reflect physiological conditions encountered in representative food consumption scenarios. To evaluate whether inclusion of more physiological conditions, such as sub-optimal and lower pepsin concentrations, in combination with pancreatin digestion, improved the performance of digestibility protocols used in characterization of protein stability. Four pairs of established allergens and their related non/weakly-allergenic counterparts (seed albumins, muscle tropomyosins, plant lipid transfer proteins [LTP] and collagens) plus fish parvalbumin, were subjected to nine combinations of pH (1.2-2.5-4.0) and pepsin-to-protein ratio (PPR: 10-1-0.1 U/µg) for pepsin digestion, followed by pancreatin digestion in the presence of bile salts. Digestion was monitored by SDS-PAGE in conjunction with Coomassie staining and immunoblotting using rabbit antisera and human IgE. At pH 4.0 and at PPR 0.1 most proteins, both allergen and non-allergen, were highly resistant to pepsin. Under conditions known to favor pepsin proteolysis, the established major allergens Ara h 2, Pru p 3 and Pen a 1 were highly resistant to proteolysis, while the allergen Cyp c 1 was not. However, this resistance to pepsin digestion only made Ara h 2 and to a lesser extent Pen a 1 and Pru p 3 stand out compared to their non-allergenic counterparts. Largely irrespective of preceding pepsin digestion conditions, pancreatin digestion was very effective for all tested proteins, allergens and non-allergens, except for Cyp c 1 and bovine collagen. Sub-optimal pH, low pepsin-to protein ratio, and sequential pepsin and pancreatin digestion protocols do not improve the predictive value in distinguish allergens from non-allergens. Digestion conditions facilitating such distinction differ per protein pair.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 12 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 25%
Student > Bachelor 1 8%
Lecturer 1 8%
Professor 1 8%
Student > Master 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Unknown 4 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 33%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 8%
Unknown 5 42%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 December 2018.
All research outputs
of 13,968,403 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Translational Allergy
of 434 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 272,915 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Translational Allergy
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,968,403 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 434 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 272,915 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them