Enzymatic activity of allergenic house dust and storage mite extracts
Journal of Medical Entomology, ISSN: 0022-2585, Vol: 50, Issue: 1, Page: 147-154
2013
- 14Citations
- 15Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations14
- Citation Indexes14
- 14
- CrossRef13
- Captures15
- Readers15
- 15
Article Description
Proteases are involved in the pathogenicity of allergy, increasing epithelial permeability and acting as adjuvants. Enzymatic activity is therefore important for the allergenicity of an extract and also affects its stability and safety. However, the enzymatic activity of extracts is not usually evaluated. The objective of this study was to evaluate the enzymatic activity of the most allergenic mite extracts and to investigate their allergenic properties. Extracts from nine allergenic mite species (Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus, Dermatophagoides farinae Hughes, Euroglyphus maynei, Lepidoglyphus destructor, Tyrophagus putrescentiae (Schrank), Glycyphagus domesticus (DeGeer), Acarus siro L., Chortoglyphus arcuatus, and Blomia tropicalis) were characterized. Protein and allergen profiles were characterized by sodium dodecyl sulfate Polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE) and western-blot, respectively. Gelatinolytic activity was evaluated with a zymogram and the activity of other enzymes (cysteine, serine proteases, and esterases) was evaluated individually or with the API-ZYM system. The main differences in protease activity were found between house dust mites and storage mites. House dust mites presented higher cysteine protease activity while storage mites presented higher serine protease activity. These differences are in line with their trophic specialization. A wide range of different activities was found in all the extracts analyzed, reflecting the fact that the extracts preserve the activity of many enzymes, this being necessary for a correct diagnosis. However, enzymes may act as adjuvants and, therefore, could lead to undesirable effects in immunotherapies, making this activity not suitable for treatment products. Modified extracts with lower enzymatic activity could be more appropriate for immunotherapy. © 2013 Entomological Society of America.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84872730443&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1603/me12154; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23427664; https://academic.oup.com/jme/article-lookup/doi/10.1603/ME12154; http://academic.oup.com/jme/article-pdf/50/1/147/18219056/jmedent50-0147.pdf; http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/esa/jme/2013/00000050/00000001/art00019; https://dx.doi.org/10.1603/me12154; https://academic.oup.com/jme/article/50/1/147/893276
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know