Can Glycation Reduce Food Allergenicity? - Journal of Agricultural

Subscriber access provided by - Access paid by the | UCSB Libraries

Can Glycation Reduce Food Allergenicity? Qinchun Rao, Xingyi Jiang, Yida Li, Mustafa Samiwala, and Theodore P. Labuza J. Agric. Food Chem., Just Accepted Manuscript • DOI: 10.1021/acs.jafc.8b00660 • Publication Date (Web): 16 Apr 2018 Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on April 16, 2018

Just Accepted “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical Society provides “Just Accepted” as a service to the research community to expedite the dissemination of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts appear in full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been fully peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are citable by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered to authors. Therefore, the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published in the journal. After a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just Accepted” Web site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor changes to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers and ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.

is published by the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036 Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society. However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course of their duties.

Page 1 of 13

1

Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry

Can Glycation Reduce Food Allergenicity?

2 3 4 5

Qinchun Rao,*,† Xingyi Jiang,* Yida Li,# Mustafa Samiwala,* and Theodore P. Labuza#

6 7

*

8

Florida 32306, USA

9

#

10

Department of Nutrition, Food and Exercise Sciences, Florida State University, Tallahassee,

Department of Food Science and Nutrition, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota 55108,

USA

11 12 13

†

Corresponding Author. Tel: +1 850-644-8215. Fax: +1 850-645-5000. Email: [email protected]

1 ACS Paragon Plus Environment


14

Abstract

15

As a naturally occurring reaction during food processing, glycation, also known as non-

16

enzymatic browning or Maillard reaction, can improve food protein physiochemical properties

17

and functionality. In this perspective, three aspects of glycation (terminology confusion between

18

glycation and glycosylation, its current application, and its impact on immunoreactivity) are

19

elaborated. Overall, the immunoreactivity of glycated proteins may decrease, remain unchanged,

20

or even increase after food glycation. Also, it should be noted that the effect of glycation on the

21

immunoglobulin (Ig)E- or IgG-binding capacity of allergens do not necessarily and correctly

22

predict the allergenicity of the glycated protein in the allergic patient population.

23 24

Keywords: glycation, Maillard reaction, allergenicity, immunoreactivity


Page 2 of 13

Page 3 of 13

25 26


Introduction Currently, there is no approved treatment for food allergy which can only be managed by

27

strict dietary avoidance and treatment of symptoms.1 To identify an unknown food allergy, the

28

recommended method is in vivo clinical diagnostic tests such as skin prick test and oral food

29

challenges, which usually take place after the allergenic symptoms have occurred.2 However,

30

these in vivo tests are inconvenient, expensive, and time-consuming. More seriously, these

31

diagnostic tests may induce severe and potential life-threatening allergic reactions in patients.2

32

To reduce the risk of food allergy, the U.S. food manufacturers have been required to

33

label food allergens or ingredients derived from eight major allergenic foods (i.e., egg, milk,

34

peanut, tree nuts, fish, shellfish, soy, and wheat) since 2006.3 To better comply with the food

35

regulations, in general, the food industry can use two prevention strategies. First, different food

36

processing techniques have the potential to reduce the allergenicity of food products, which has

37

been reviewed comprehensively.4 Protein glycation is one of these food-processing techniques.

38

Second, many immunoglobulin (Ig)E- or IgG-based analytical methods have been used to study

39

the effect of different processing techniques on the immunoreactivity of allergenic proteins and

40

to detect those undeclared allergenic residues in foods. In this perspective, three aspects of

41

glycation (terminology confusion between glycation and glycosylation, its current application,

42

and its impact on immunoreactivity) are elaborated.

43 44 45

Terminology Confusion of Food Protein Glycation Historically, the definition of glycation has been revised at least three times by the

46

International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) and the International Union of

47

Biochemistry (IUB) Joint Commission on Biochemical Nomenclature (JCBN). In 1985, the term



48

“glycation” was suggested for “all reactions that link a sugar to a protein or peptide, whether or

49

not catalyzed by an enzyme.”5 In 1986, the second half of this statement was revised to “whether

50

or not they form a glycosyl bond.”6 In order to distinguish protein glycation from protein

51

glycosylation (i.e., the enzymatic-directed protein-carbohydrate interactions),7 its World Wide

52

Web version from JCBN has been reworded by Dr. Gerard P. Moss (current Chairman of JCBN)

53

to “all such reactions that link a sugar to a protein or peptide,” in which the term “such reactions”

54

means non-enzymatic reactions.8 It has been reported that although both glycation and

55

glycosylation are not random reactions, glycation is less specific than glycosylation.9

56

Despite they are two completely different concepts, the term “glycosylation” has been

57

misused in many peer-reviewed studies of various glycated food proteins such as whey proteins10

58

and codfish parvalbumin.11 In addition, many research articles complex this term by defining it

59

as “non-enzymatic glycosylation”12 and “Maillard-type protein-polysaccharide conjugation.”13

60

Overall, this inappropriate terminology usage should be avoided in related research in the future.

61

Accuracy and consistency in the use of scientific terms would not only help avoid

62

misunderstanding but also improve interdisciplinary communication.

63 64 65

Application of Glycation and Its Impact on Food Protein Immunoreactivity Food protein glycation, also known as non-enzymatic browning or Maillard reaction, is a

66

chemical reaction between an available amino group (usually from proteins) and a carbonyl-

67

containing moiety (reducing sugar). A reversible Schiff base is initially formed between a

68

reducing sugar and the amino group. The Schiff base undergoes an intramolecular rearrangement

69

to form the Amadori products.14 As a naturally occurring reaction during food processing, it has

70

been reported that glycation can improve food protein physiochemical properties and


Page 4 of 13

Page 5 of 13


71

functionality including solubility, emulsifying and foaming properties, antimicrobial activity, and

72

thermal stability.13, 15 Although the glycated food proteins have received much attention in recent

73

years, to the best of our knowledge, the commercial glycated food products are still not available.

74

Currently, all research and development of food glycation technology are only at the

75

laboratory scale. In general, the lab-scale glycation can be classified into two methods: the dry

76

method and the wet method. In the dry method, the glycated proteins can be produced during

77

storage of the freeze-dried powders of protein-sugar mixtures under an elevated temperature and

78

a given relative humidity (Table 1). In the wet method, the glycated proteins can be lyophilized

79

after storage of the liquid mixture of protein and reducing sugar under elevated temperature

80

(Table 1).

81

It is noted that many in vitro (Table 1) and in vivo (Table 2) studies have shown that the

82

immunoreactivity of glycated proteins may decrease, remain unchanged, or even increase after

83

food glycation. This indicates that protein glycation has the ability to generate new epitopes

84

(linear or conformational) and/or change the conformation of existing epitopes recognized by

85

IgE and/or IgG antibodies. For example, it has been reported that the conformational change in

86

epitopes on glycated hen egg ovalbumin decreased the IgE-binding capacity, simultaneously,

87

increased the in vitro immunoreactivity of IgG.16

88

The effect of glycation on the protein immunoreactivity is also dependent on a number of

89

factors mainly including sources of protein and sugar,17 protein-to-sugar ratio,18 and processing

90

conditions (dry or wet methods, temperature, and incubation time).19 For example, the increase

91

in the glycation incubation time could not guarantee the reduction of immunoreactivity.18 It

92

should be noted that there are few studies being conducted to compare the yield efficiency and

93

the immunoreactivity difference between two preparation methods (dry and wet) using the same



94

protein. It has been reported that the antigenicity of the wet-heated soy protein isolate (SPI)

95

decreased much greater than that of the dry-heated SPI.20 However, this might be caused by the

96

difference in the processing conditions and the protein-to-sugar ratios between these two

97

methods.

98 99

In addition, there are two major challenges in the study of the effect of glycation on food protein immunoreactivity. First, a simple and effective quantitative analysis method to measure

100

the yield of the glycated proteins is needed. Currently, the glycated proteins are mainly

101

illustrated by the smearing effect using sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel

102

electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE) due to the change in protein molecular weight (Tables 1 and 2).

103

However, the smearing effect may be generated by protein aggregation during glycation. Also,

104

although glycation can be indirectly confirmed by the measurement of browning products at 420

105

nm,18 it should be noted that this Maillard-induced color change can be developed due to the

106

trace amount of the inherent reducing sugar.21

107

Second, in vivo studies of food protein glycation are limited (Table 2). Most published

108

studies are in vitro (Table 1). However, the effect of food protein glycation on the IgE- or IgG-

109

binding capacity of allergens do not necessarily and correctly predict the allergenicity of the

110

glycated protein in the allergic patient population. More importantly, as mentioned by the

111

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) recently, “most studies available report on the IgE-

112

binding capacity of processed foods rather than on their allergenicity, whereas systematic

113

investigations on the effects of food processing on allergenicity under controlled conditions are

114

scarce.”22

115 116

Acknowledgements


Page 6 of 13

Page 7 of 13

117 118


This study was supported in part by the Midwest Dairy Association and by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture (2017-70001-25984).



119

Page 8 of 13

Table 1. Effect of glycation on the in vitro immunoreactivity of various food proteins Food protein

Reducing sugar

Atlantic cod parvalbumin

Glucose

Bovine β-lactoglobulin

Galactose

1:1

10-kDa dextran

1:2

20-kDa dextran

1:2

Bovine whey protein isolate

Glucose

0.17-7.83:1

Buckwheat Fag e 1

20-kDa arabinogalactan 1.4-kDa xyloglucan Glucose Ribose

1:1

Glucose

Hazelnut Cor a 11

Hen egg ovalbumin

Glucose

Protein: sugar (w/w) 1:5 (molar ratio)

Glycation conditions Temp. Matrix (°C) Liquid 60

Immunoreactivity Time 5-48 h

Powder (RH44%) Powder (RH44%) Powder (RH44%) Powder (RH79%)

40

1d

60

36 h

60

60 h

40-60

24-120 h

60

7d

1:18 1:15

Powder (RH65%) Liquid Liquid

100 100

30 min 30 min

1:2

Powder

37

7d

25:21

Liquid

60 145 60

3d 20 min 0-2 h

1:0.05

Powder (RH65%) Powder (RH65%)

50

48-96 h

50

48-96 h

100

2h

Hen egg ovomucoid

Glucose

1:0.05

Peanut 2S albumins (Ara h 2/6)

Glucose

1:4.5

Liquid


Glycation degree

• Higher molecular weight bands on reducing SDSPAGE • Reduction of lysine content • Highly glycated • Non-aggregated • Maximum level of glycation • Low aggregation • Maximum level of glycation • Low aggregation • Absorbance increase at 420 nm • Decrease in free amino acid content • Broad bands on reducing SDS-PAGE • Weak and diffused protein band on reducing SDSPAGE • Smear bands on reducing SDS-PAGE • Decrease in free amino acid content

• Decrease of free amino acid group • Covalent aggregation on non-reducing SDS-PAGE • Diffuse bands at high molecular weight on nonreducing SDS-PAGE • Decrease in free amino acid content N/A

IgG

↓

IgE

References

↑

11

↑

23

↑ × 18

↓

↓

↓

24

↓ ↓ 19

×

×

↓ ↓ ↑

↓ ↓ ↓

↓

↓

25

↓

↑

25

↓

26

16

Page 9 of 13


Food protein

Reducing sugar

Scallop tropomyosin

Glucose

Protein: sugar (w/w) 1:540

Ribose Maltose Maltotriose Ribose

1: 450 1:1027 1:1513 1:450

Fructooligosaccharides (FOS)

Squid tropomyosin Soy protein isolate

Immunoreactivity Time 48 h

Glycation degree

IgG

Powder (RH35%)

60

1:1.1

Powder (RH65%)

60

0-19 d

Fructose

1:0.07

60

0-19 d

FOS

1:4-74 (molar ratio) 1:1.3-24 (molar ratio)

Powder (RH65%) Liquid

95

0-5 h

↓

Liquid

95

0-5 h

↓

• Reduction of lysine content • Smear bands on reducing SDS-PAGE • Invisible 7S and 11S fractions on SDS-PAGE • A significant decrease in free amino acid groups • Decrease in free amino acid content

IgE ↑

• Smear bands on SDS-PAGE • Reduction of lysine content

3h 15 d 15 d 3h

Fructose

120 121

Glycation conditions Temp. Matrix (°C) Powder 60 (RH35%)

↑ ↑ × ↓

↓

References 17

27

20

↓

RH: relative humidity; ↑: increase; ↓: decrease; ×: unchanged; N/A: not available; d: day; h: hour; min: minute; w: week; SDS-PAGE: sodium dodecyl sulfate polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis



122

Table 2. Effect of glycation on the in vivo allergenicity of hen egg ovalbumin

Reducing Sugar Glucose

Mannose Glucomanna

123

Page 10 of 13

Glycation conditions Protein:sugar Temp. Matrix (w/w) (°C) 1:4003 Liquid 50

Time

1:4003

Liquid

1:1

Powder (RH65%)

Glycation degree

Mouse model

Allergenicity

6w

• Diffuse bands on reducing SDS-PAGE

C57BL/6J(B6)

↑

50

6w

• Diffuse bands on nonreducing SDS-PAGE

BALB/c

↑

55

72 h

• Higher molecular weight bands on reducing SDS-PAGE • Decrease of free amino acids

BALB/c

↓

RH: relative humidity; ↑: increase; ↓: decrease; h: hour; w: week


Explanation

• Scavenger receptor class A type-1 and type-2 targets glycated OVA to the MHC class Ⅱ loading pathway in myeloid dendritic cell • Glycation enhanced the activation of OVA-specific CD4+ T cells • Glycan structure (pyraline-OVA) can bind to scavenger receptor class A, which enhanced the activation of OVAspecific CD4+ T cells • Regulation of dendritic cells differentiation and T-cell activation • Reduction of type-1 and type-2 immune response

References 28

29

30

Page 11 of 13


124

References

125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168

1. Vierk, K. A.; Koehler, K. M.; Fein, S. B.; Street, D. A., Prevalence of self-reported food allergy in American adults and use of food labels. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 2007, 119, 15041510. 2. Boyce, J. A.; Assa'ad, A.; Burks, A. W.; Jones, S. M.; Sampson, H. A.; Wood, R. A.; Plaut, M.; Cooper, S. F.; Fenton, M. J.; Arshad, S. H.; Bahna, S. L.; Beck, L. A.; ByrdBredbenner, C.; Camargo, C. A.; Eichenfield, L.; Furuta, G. T.; Hanifin, J. M.; Jones, C.; Kraft, M.; Levy, B. D.; Lieberman, P.; Luccioli, S.; McCall, K. M.; Schneider, L. C.; Simon, R. A.; Simons, F. E. R.; Teach, S. J.; Yawn, B. P.; Schwaninger, J. M., Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of food allergy in the United States: Report of the NIAID-Sponsored Expert Panel. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 2010, 126, S5-S58. 3. USFDA. Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act of 2004. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/GuidanceRegulation/UCM179394.pdf (April 13, 2018). 4. Verhoeckx, K. C.; Vissers, Y. M.; Baumert, J. L.; Faludi, R.; Feys, M.; Flanagan, S.; Herouet-Guicheney, C.; Holzhauser, T.; Shimojo, R.; van der Bolt, N., Food processing and allergenicity. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2015, 80, 223-240. 5. Sharon, N., IUPAC-IUB Joint Commission on Biochemical Nomenclature (JCBN). Nomenclature of glycoproteins, glycopeptides and peptidoglycans. Recommendations 1985. Glycoconj. J. 1986, 3, 123-134. 6. Sharon, N., IUPAC-IUB Joint Commission on Biochemical Nomenclature (JCBN). Nomenclature of glycoproteins, glycopeptides and peptidoglycans. Recommendations 1985. Eur. J. Biochem. 1986, 159, 1-6. 7. Brownlee, M.; Cerami, A.; Vlassara, H., Advanced glycosylation end products in tissue and the biochemical basis of diabetic complications. N. Engl. J. Med. 1988, 318, 1315-1321. 8. Moss, G. P. IUPAC-IUB Joint Commission on Biochemical Nomenclature (JCBN). Nomenclature of glycoproteins, glycopeptides and peptidoglycans. Recommendations 1985. . http://www.chem.qmw.ac.uk/iupac/misc/noGreek/glycp.html (April 13, 2018). 9. Zhang, Q. B.; Ames, J. M.; Smith, R. D.; Baynes, J. W.; Metz, T. O., A perspective on the maillard reaction and the analysis of protein glycation by mass spectrometry: Probing the pathogenesis of chronic disease. J. Proteome Res. 2009, 8, 754-769. 10. Jimenez-Castano, L.; Villamiel, M.; Lopez-Fandino, R., Glycosylation of individual whey proteins by Maillard reaction using dextran of different molecular mass. Food Hydrocolloid 2007, 21, 433-443. 11. de Jongh, H. H. J.; Robles, C. L.; Timmerman, E.; Nordlee, J. A.; Lee, P. W.; Baumert, J. L.; Hamilton, R. G.; Taylor, S. L.; Koppelman, S. J., Digestibility and IgE-binding of glycosylated codfish parvalbumin. Biomed. Res. Int. 2013, doi:10.1155/2013/756789. 12. Mierzeiewska, D.; Mitrowska, P.; Rudnicka, B.; Kubicka, E.; Kostyra, H., Effect of nonenzymatic glycosylation of pea albumins on their immunoreactive properties. Food Chem. 2008, 111, 127-131. 13. Kato, A., Industrial applications of Maillard-type protein-polysaccharide conjugates. Food Sci. Technol. Res. 2002, 8, 193-199. 14. Hodge, J. E., Dehydrated foods: Chemistry of browning reactions in model systems. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1953, 1, 928-943. 15. Liu, J.; Ru, Q.; Ding, Y., Glycation a promising method for food protein modification: Physicochemical properties and structure, a review. Food Res. Int. 2012, 49, 170-183. 11 ACS Paragon Plus Environment


169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212

16. Ma, X. J.; Chen, H. B.; Gao, J. Y.; Hu, C. Q.; Li, X., Conformation affects the potential allergenicity of ovalbumin after heating and glycation. Food Addit. Contam. Part A Chem. Anal. Control Expo. Risk Assess 2013, 30, 1684-1692. 17. Nakamura, A.; Watanabe, K.; Ojima, T.; Ahn, D. H.; Saeki, H., Effect of Maillard reaction on allergenicity of scallop tropomyosin. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2005, 53, 7559-7564. 18. Bu, G. H.; Luo, Y. K.; Lu, J.; Zhang, Y., Reduced antigenicity of β-lactoglobulin by conjugation with glucose through controlled Maillard reaction conditions. Food Agr. Immunol. 2010, 21, 143-156. 19. Iwan, M.; Vissers, Y. M.; Fiedorowicz, E.; Kostyra, H.; Kostyra, E.; Savelkoul, H. F. J.; Wichers, H. J., Impact of Maillard reaction on immunoreactivity and allergenicity of the hazelnut allergen Cor a 11. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2011, 59, 7163-7171. 20. van de Lagemaat, J.; Manuel Silván, J.; Javier Moreno, F.; Olano, A.; Dolores del Castillo, M., In vitro glycation and antigenicity of soy proteins. Food Res. Int. 2007, 40, 153-160. 21. Li, Z.; Luo, Y. K.; Feng, L. G., Effects of Maillard reaction conditions on the antigenicity of α-lactalbumin and β-lactoglobulin in whey protein conjugated with maltose. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2011, 233, 387-394. 22. EFSA NDA Panel (EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products Nutrition and Allergies), Scientific Opinion on the evaluation of allergenic foods and food ingredients for labelling purposes. EFSA Journal 2014, 12, 3894. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3894. 23. Corzo-Martinez, M.; Soria, A. C.; Belloque, J.; Villamiel, M.; Moreno, F. J., Effect of glycation on the gastrointestinal digestibility and immunoreactivity of bovine β-lactoglobulin. Int. Dairy J. 2010, 20, 742-752. 24. Nakamura, S.; Suzuki, Y.; Ishikawa, E.; Yakushi, T.; Jing, H.; Miyamoto, T.; Hashizume, K., Reduction of in vitro allergenicity of buckwheat Fag e 1 through the Maillard-type glycosylation with polysaccharides. Food Chem. 2008, 109, 538-545. 25. Jiménez-Saiz, R.; Belloque, J.; Molina, E.; López-Fandiño, R., Human immunoglobulin E (IgE) binding to heated and glycated ovalbumin and ovomucoid before and after in vitro digestion. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2011, 59, 10044-10051. 26. Vissers, Y. M.; Blanc, F.; Skov, P. S.; Johnson, P. E.; Rigby, N. M.; Przybylski-Nicaise, L.; Bernard, H.; Wal, J. M.; Ballmer-Weber, B.; Zuidmeer-Jongejan, L.; Szepfalusi, Z.; Ruinemans-Koerts, J.; Jansen, A. P. H.; Savelkoul, H. F. J.; Wichers, H. J.; Mackie, A. R.; Mills, C. E. N.; Adel-Patient, K., Effect of heating and glycation on the allergenicity of 2s albumins (Ara h 2/6) from peanut. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0023998. 27. Nakamura, A.; Sasaki, F.; Watanabe, K.; Ojima, T.; Ahn, D. H.; Saeki, H., Changes in allergenicity and digestibility of squid tropomyosin during the Maillard reaction with ribose. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2006, 54, 9529-9534. 28. Ilchmann, A.; Burgdorf, S.; Scheurer, S.; Waibler, Z.; Nagai, R.; Wellner, A.; Yamamoto, Y.; Yamamoto, H.; Henle, T.; Kurts, C.; Kalinke, U.; Vieths, S.; Toda, M., Glycation of a food allergen by the Maillard reaction enhances its T-cell immunogenicity: Role of macrophage scavenger receptor class A type I and II. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 2010, 125, 175-183. 29. Heilmann, M.; Wellner, A.; Gadermaier, G.; Ilchmann, A.; Briza, P.; Krause, M.; Nagai, R.; Burgdorf, S.; Scheurer, S.; Vieths, S.; Henle, T.; Toda, M., Ovalbumin modified with pyrraline, a Maillard reaction product, shows enhanced T-cell immunogenicity. J. Biol. Chem. 2014, 289, 7919-7928.


Page 12 of 13

Page 13 of 13

213 214 215


30. Rupa, P.; Nakamura, S.; Katayama, S.; Mine, Y., Effects of ovalbumin glycoconjugates on alleviation of orally induced egg allergy in mice via dendritic-cell maturation and T-cell activation. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 2014, 58, 405-417.


Can Glycation Reduce Food Allergenicity? - Journal of Agricultural

Recommend Documents