Development of allergic antibody to an enzyme in a body lotion: results of an 18-month clinical study

Application of AllerCatPro 2.0 for protein safety assessments of consumer products

Foreign proteins are potentially immunogenic, and a proportion of these are able to induce immune responses that result in allergic sensitization. Subsequent exposure of sensitized subjects to the inducing protein can provoke a variety of allergic reactions that may be severe, or even fatal. It has therefore been recognized for some time that it is important to determine a priori whether a given protein has the potential to induce allergic responses in exposed subjects. For example, the need to assess whether transgene products expressed in genetically engineered crop plants have allergenic properties. This is not necessarily a straightforward exercise (as discussed elsewhere in this edition), but the task becomes even more challenging when there is a need to conduct an overall allergenicity safety assessment of complex mixtures of proteins in botanicals or other natural sources that are to be used in consumer products. This paper describes a new paradigm for the allergenicity safety assessment of proteins that is based on the use of AllerCatPro 2.0, a new version of a previously described web application model developed for the characterization of the allergenic potential of proteins. Operational aspects of AllerCatPro 2.0 are described with emphasis on the application of new features that provide improvements in the predictions of allergenic properties such as the identification of proteins with high allergenic concern. Furthermore, the paper provides a description of strategies of how AllerCatPro 2.0 can best be deployed as a screening tool for identifying suitable proteins as ingredients in consumer products as well as a tool, in conjunction with label-free proteomic analysis, for identifying and semiquantifying protein allergens in complex materials. Lastly, the paper discusses the steps that are recommended for formal allergenicity safety assessment of novel consumer products which contain proteins, including consideration and integration of predicted consumer exposure metrics. The article therefore provides a holistic perspective of the processes through which effective protein safety assessments can be made of potential allergenic hazards and risks associated with exposure to proteins in consumer products, with a particular focus on the use of AllerCatPro 2.0 for this purpose.

Airborne protein concentration: a key metric for type 1 allergy risk assessment-in home measurement challenges and considerations

Background

Exposure to airborne proteins can be associated with the development of immediate, IgE-mediated respiratory allergies, with genetic, epigenetic and environmental factors also playing a role in determining the likelihood that sensitisation will be induced. The main objective of this study was to determine whether airborne concentrations of selected common aeroallergens could be quantified in the air of homes using easily deployable, commercially available equipment and analytical methods, at low levels relevant to risk assessment of the potential to develop respiratory allergies. Additionally, air and dust sampling were compared and the influence of factors such as different filter types on allergen quantification explored.

Methods

Low volume air sampling pumps and DUSTREAM^® dust samplers were used to sample 20 homes and allergen levels were quantified using a MARIA^® immunoassay.

Results

It proved possible to detect a range of common aeroallergens in the home with sufficient sensitivity to quantify airborne concentrations in ranges relevant to risk assessment (Limits of Detection of 0.005–0.03 ng/m³). The methodology discriminates between homes related to pet ownership and there were clear advantages to sampling air over dust which are described in this paper. Furthermore, in an adsorption–extraction study, PTFE (polytetrafluoroethylene) filters gave higher and more consistent recovery values than glass fibre (grade A) filters for the range of aeroallergens studied.

Conclusions

Very low airborne concentrations of allergenic proteins in home settings can be successfully quantified using commercially available pumps and immunoassays. Considering the greater relevance of air sampling to human exposure of the respiratory tract and its other advantages, wider use of standardised, sensitive techniques to measure low airborne protein concentrations and how they influence development of allergic sensitisation and symptoms could accelerate our understanding of human dose–response relationships and refine our knowledge of thresholds of allergic sensitisation and elicitation via the respiratory tract.

Enzymes in cleaning products: an overview of toxicological properties and risk assessment/management

Enzymes used in cleaning products have an excellent safety profile, with little ability to cause adverse responses in humans. For acute toxicity, genotoxicity, sub-acute and repeated dose toxicity, enzymes are unremarkable. Reproductive toxicity and carcinogenicity are also not endpoints of concern. Exceptions are the ability of some proteases to produce irritating effects at high concentrations and more importantly, the intrinsic potential of these bacterial/fungal proteins to act as respiratory sensitizers. It is a reasonable assumption that the majority of enzyme proteins possess this hazard. However, methods for characterising the respiratory sensitisation hazard of enzymes are lacking and the information required for risk assessment and risk management, although sufficient, remains limited. Previously, most data was generated in animal models and in in vitro immunoassays that assess immunological cross-reactivity. Nevertheless, by the establishment of strict limits on airborne exposure (based on a defined minimal effect limit of 60ng active enzyme protein/m(3)) and air and health monitoring, occupational safety can be assured. Similarly, by ensuring that airborne exposure is kept similarly low, coupled with knowledge of the fate of these enzymes on skin and fabrics, it has proven possible to establish a long history of safe consumer use of enzyme containing products.

Assessing the risk of type 1 allergy to enzymes present in laundry and cleaning products: evidence from the clinical data

Microbial enzymes have been used in laundry detergent products for several decades. These enzymes have also long been known to have the potential to give rise to occupational type 1 allergic responses. A few cases of allergy among consumers using dusty enzyme detergents were reported in the early 1970s. Encapsulation of the enzymes along with other formula changes were made to ensure that consumer exposure levels were sufficiently low that the likelihood of either the induction of IgE antibody (sensitization) or the elicitation of clinical symptoms be highly improbable. Understanding the consumer exposure to enzymes which are used in laundry and cleaning products is a key step to the risk management process. Validation of the risk assessment conclusions and the risk management process only comes with practical experience and evidence from the marketplace. In the present work, clinical data from a range of sources collected over the past 40 years have been analysed. These include data from peer reviewed literature and enzyme specific IgE antibody test results in detergent manufacturers' employees and from clinical study subjects. In total, enzyme specific IgE antibody data were available on 15,765 individuals. There were 37 individuals with IgE antibody. The majority of these cases were from the 1970s where 23 of 4687 subjects (0.49%) were IgE positive and 15 of the 23 were reported to have symptoms of allergy. The remaining 14 cases were identified post-1977 for a prevalence of 0.126% (14/11,078). No symptoms were reported and no relationship to exposure to laundry and cleaning products was found. There was a significant difference between the pre- and post-1977 cohorts in that the higher rates of sensitization with symptoms were associated with higher exposure to enzyme. The clinical testing revealed that the prevalence of enzyme specific IgE in the population is very rare (0.126% since 1977). This demonstrates that exposure to these strong respiratory allergens via use of laundry and cleaning products does not lead to the development of sensitization and disease. These data confirm that the risk to consumers has been properly assessed and managed and support the concept that thresholds of exposure exist for respiratory allergy. Expansion of enzyme use into new consumer product categories should follow completion of robust risk assessments in order to continue ensuring the safe use of enzymes among consumers.

Defining occupational and consumer exposure limits for enzyme protein respiratory allergens under REACH

A wide range of substances have been recognized as sensitizing, either to the skin and/or to the respiratory tract. Many of these are useful materials, so to ensure that they can be used safely it is necessary to characterize the hazards and establish appropriate exposure limits. Under new EU legislation (REACH), there is a requirement to define a derived no effect level (DNEL). Where a DNEL cannot be established, e.g. for sensitizing substances, then a derived minimal effect level (DMEL) is recommended. For the bacterial and fungal enzymes which are well recognized respiratory sensitizers and have widespread use industrially as well as in a range of consumer products, a DMEL can be established by thorough retrospective review of occupational and consumer experience. In particular, setting the validated employee medical surveillance data against exposure records generated over an extended period of time is vital in informing the occupational DMEL. This experience shows that a long established limit of 60 ng/m(3) for pure enzyme protein has been a successful starting point for the definition of occupational health limits for sensitization in the detergent industry. Application to this of adjustment factors has limited sensitization induction, avoided any meaningful risk of the elicitation of symptoms with known enzymes and provided an appropriate level of security for new enzymes whose potency has not been fully characterized. For example, in the detergent industry, this has led to general use of occupational exposure limits 3-10 times lower than the 60 ng/m(3) starting point. In contrast, consumer exposure limits vary because the types of exposure themselves cover a wide range. The highest levels shown to be safe in use, 15 ng/m(3), are associated with laundry trigger sprays, but very much lower levels (e.g. 0.01 ng/m(3)) are commonly associated with other types of safe exposure. Consumer limits typically will lie between these values and depend on the actual exposure associated with product use.