Advertisement

Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry

, Volume 408, Issue 27, pp 7845–7855 | Cite as

MRM3-based LC-MS multi-method for the detection and quantification of nut allergens

  • Robin Korte
  • Jens BrockmeyerEmail author
Research Paper

Abstract

Food allergies have become a global challenge to food safety in industrialized countries in recent years. With governmental monitoring and legislation moving towards the establishment of threshold allergen doses, there is a need for sensitive and quantitative analytical methods for the determination of allergenic food contaminants. Targeted proteomics employing liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry (LC-MS) has emerged as a promising technique that offers increased specificity and reproducibility compared to antibody and DNA-based technologies. As the detection of trace levels of allergenic food contaminants also demands excellent sensitivity, we aimed to significantly increase the analytical performance of LC-MS by utilizing multiple reaction monitoring cubed (MRM3) technology. Following a bottom-up proteomics approach, including a straightforward sample preparation process, 38 MRM3 experiments specific to 18 proteotypic peptides were developed and optimized. This permitted the highly specific identification of peanut, almond, cashew, hazelnut, pistachio, and walnut. The analytical performance of the method was assessed for three relevant food matrices with different chemical compositions. Limits of detection were around 1 μg/g or below in fortified matrix samples, not accounting for the effects of food processing. Compared to an MRM-based approach, the MRM3-based method showed an increase in sensitivity of up to 30-fold. Regression analysis demonstrated high linearity of the MRM3 signal in spiked matrix samples together with robust intersample reproducibility, confirming that the method is highly applicable for quantitative purposes. To the best of our knowledge, we describe here the most sensitive LC-MS multi-method for food allergen detection thus far. In addition, this is the first study that systematically compares MRM3 with MRM for the analysis of complex foods.

Graphical abstract

Allergen detection by MRM3

Keywords

Food allergens Mass spectrometry MRM3 Marker peptides Tree nut allergy 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Imke Westkamp for excellent technical assistance and the Bavarian Agency for Health and Food Safety (LGL) Oberschleißheim for the real-time PCR analyses. We also acknowledge support from the German National Academic Foundation (Studienstiftung des Deutschen Volkes) for funding this work by providing a Ph.D. scholarship.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of financial or nonfinancial interest in the work that is presented in this study.

Supplementary material

216_2016_9888_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (81 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 80 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Sicherer SH, Sampson HA. Food allergy: epidemiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2014;133:291–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Husain Z, Schwartz RA. Food allergy update: more than a peanut of a problem. Int J Dermatol. 2013;52:286–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mills ENC, Breiteneder H. Food allergy and its relevance to industrial food proteins. Biotechnol Adv. 2005;23:409–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gendel SM. Comparison of international food allergen labeling regulations. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2012;63:279–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    EU. Regulation no. 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers. Off J Eur Union. 2011;L304:18–63.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    FDA. Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act. Silver Spring: US Food and Drug Administration; 2004.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Crevel RWR, Baumert JL, Baka A, Houben GF, Knulst AC, Kruizinga AG, et al. Development and evolution of risk assessment for food allergens. Food Chem Toxicol. 2014;67:262–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Barnett J, Leftwich J, Muncer K, Grimshaw K, Shepherd R, Raats MM, et al. How do peanut and nut-allergic consumers use information on the packaging to avoid allergens? Allergy Eur J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2011;66:969–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Remington BC, Baumert JL, Blom WM, Houben GF, Taylor SL, Kruizinga AG. Unintended allergens in precautionary labelled and unlabelled products pose significant risks to UK allergic consumers. Allergy Eur J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2015;70:813–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Taylor SL, Baumert JL, Kruizinga AG, Remington BC, Crevel RWR, Brooke-Taylor S, et al. Establishment of reference doses for residues of allergenic foods: report of the VITAL Expert Panel. Food Chem Toxicol. 2014;63:9–17.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pöpping B, Diaz-Amigo C. The probability of obtaining a correct and representative result in allergen analysis. Agro Food Ind Hi-Tech. 2014;25:421–42.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Picariello G, Mamone G, Addeo F, Ferranti P. The frontiers of mass spectrometry-based techniques in food allergenomics. J Chromatogr A. 2011;1218:7386–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Andjelkovic U, Martinovic T, Josic D. Foodomic investigations of food allergies. Curr Opin Food Sci. 2015;4:92–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ben Rejeb S, Abbott M, Davies D, Cléroux C, Delahaut P. Multi-allergen screening immunoassay for the detection of protein markers of peanut and four tree nuts in chocolate. Food Addit Contam. 2005;22:709–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cho CY, Nowatzke W, Oliver K, Garber EAE. Multiplex detection of food allergens and gluten. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2015;407:4195–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cucu T, Platteau C, Taverniers I, Devreese B, De Loose M, De Meulenaer B. Effect of protein glycation in the presence or absence of wheat proteins on detection of soybean proteins by commercial ELISA. Food Addit Contam Pt A. 2011;28:127–35.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Parker CH, Khuda SE, Pereira M, Ross MM, Fu T-J, Fan X, et al. Multi-allergen quantification and the impact of thermal treatment in industry-processed baked goods by ELISA and liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry. J Agric Food Chem. 2015;63:10669–80.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Holzhauser T, Röder M. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) methods for detecting allergens in foods. In: Flanagan S (ed.) Handbook of food allergen detection and control. Cambridge: Elsevier; 2015. doi: 10.1533/9781782420217.2.245.
  19. 19.
    Ahsan N, Rao RSP, Gruppuso PA, Ramratnam B, Salomon AR. Targeted proteomics: current status and future perspectives for quantification of food allergens. J Proteome. 2016;143:15–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Careri M, Costa A, Elviri L, Lagos JB, Mangia A, Terenghi M, et al. Use of specific peptide biomarkers for quantitative confirmation of hidden allergenic peanut proteins Ara h 2 and Ara h 3/4 for food control by liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2007;389:1901–7.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bignardi C, Elviri L, Penna A, Careri M, Mangia A. Particle-packed column versus silica-based monolithic column for liquid chromatography–electrospray–linear ion trap–tandem mass spectrometry multiallergen trace analysis in foods. J Chromatogr A. 2010;1217:7579–85.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Heick J, Fischer M, Pöpping B. First screening method for the simultaneous detection of seven allergens by liquid chromatography mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr A. 2011;1218:938–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Monaci L, Losito I, De Angelis E, Pilolli R, Visconti A. Multi-allergen quantification of fining-related egg and milk proteins in white wines by high-resolution mass spectrometry. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom. 2013;27:2009–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Monaci L, De Angelis E, Bavaro SL, Pilolli R. High-resolution OrbitrapTM-based mass spectrometry for rapid detection of peanuts in nuts. Food Addit Contam Pt A. 2015;32:1607–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Korte R, Lepski S, Brockmeyer J. Comprehensive peptide marker identification for the detection of multiple nut allergens using a non-targeted LC-HRMS multi-method. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2016;408:3059–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Demmel A, Hupfer C, Busch U, Engel K-H. Quantification of lupine (Lupinus angustifolius) in wheat flour using real-time PCR and an internal standard material. Eur Food Res Technol. 2012;235:61–6.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Röder M, Vieths S, Holzhauser T. Sensitive and specific detection of potentially allergenic almond (Prunus dulcis) in complex food matrices by Taqman® real-time polymerase chain reaction in comparison to commercially available protein-based enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Anal Chim Acta. 2011;685:74–83.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Luber F, Demmel A, Herbert D, Hosken A, Hupfer C, Huber I, et al. Comparative assessment of DNA-based approaches for the quantification of food allergens. Food Chem. 2014;160:104–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wang H, Li G, Wu Y, Yuan F, Chen Y. Development of an indirect competitive immunoassay for walnut protein component in food. Food Chem. 2014;147:106–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Costa J, Ansari P, Mafra I, Oliveira MBPP, Baumgartner S. Development of a sandwich ELISA-type system for the detection and quantification of hazelnut in model chocolates. Food Chem. 2015;173:257–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Fortin T, Salvador A, Charrier JP, Lenz C, Bettsworth F, Lacoux X, et al. Multiple reaction monitoring cubed for protein quantification at the low nanogram/milliliter level in nondepleted human serum. Anal Chem. 2009;81:9343–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Jaffuel A, Lemoine J, Aubert C, Simon R, Léonard J-F, Gautier J-C, et al. Optimization of liquid chromatography–multiple reaction monitoring cubed mass spectrometry assay for protein quantification: application to aquaporin-2 water channel in human urine. J Chromatogr A. 2013;1301:122–30.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Jeudy J, Salvador A, Simon R, Jaffuel A, Fonbonne C, Léonard JF, et al. Overcoming biofluid protein complexity during targeted mass spectrometry detection and quantification of protein biomarkers by MRM cubed (MRM3). Anal Bioanal Chem. 2014;406:1193–200.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Miyachi A, Murase T, Yamada Y, Osonoi T, Harada K. Quantitative analytical method for determining the levels of gastric inhibitory polypeptides GIP1-42 and GIP3-42 in human plasma using LC–MS/MS/MS. J Proteome Res. 2013;12:2690–9.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pailleux F, Beaudry F. Evaluation of multiple reaction monitoring cubed for the analysis of tachykinin related peptides in rat spinal cord using a hybrid triple quadrupole-linear ion trap mass spectrometer. J Chromatogr B. 2014;947–948:164–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Simon R, Lemoine J, Fonbonne C, Jaffuel A, Léonard J-F, Gautier J-C, et al. Absolute quantification of podocin, a potential biomarker of glomerular injury in human urine, by liquid chromatography–multiple reaction monitoring cubed mass spectrometry. J Pharm Biomed Anal. 2014;94:84–91.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Leuthold LA, Grivet C, Allen M, Baumert M, Hopfgartner G. Simultaneous selected reaction monitoring, MS/MS and MS3 quantitation for the analysis of pharmaceutical compounds in human plasma using chip-based infusion. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom. 2004;18:1995–2000.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wright MJ, Thomas RL, Stanford PE, Horvath AR. Multiple reaction monitoring with multistage fragmentation (MRM3) detection enhances selectivity for LC-MS/MS analysis of plasma free metanephrines. Clin Chem. 2015;61:505–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hövelmann Y, Hickert S, Cramer B, Humpf H-U. Determination of the exposure to the Alternaria mycotoxin tenuazonic acid and its isomer allo-tenuazonic acid in a German population by stable isotope dilution HPLC-MS. J Agric Food Chem. 2016. doi: 10.1021/acs.jafc.6b02735.
  40. 40.
    von Bargen C, Dojahn J, Waidelich D, Humpf H-U, Brockmeyer J. New sensitive high-performance liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry method for the detection of horse and pork in halal beef. J Agric Food Chem. 2013;61:11986–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    von Bargen C, Brockmeyer J, Humpf H-U. Meat authentication: a new HPLC–MS/MS based method for the fast and sensitive detection of horse and pork in highly processed food. J Agric Food Chem. 2014;62:9428–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Korte R, Monneuse J-M, Gemrot E, Metton I, Humpf H-U, Brockmeyer J. A new HPLC-MS method for the detection of lobster and shrimp allergens in food samples via MRM and MRM3. J Agric Food Chem. 2016;64:6219–27. doi: 10.1021/acs.jafc.6b02620.
  43. 43.
    Downs ML, Baumert JL, Taylor SL, Mills ENC. Mass spectrometric analysis of allergens in roasted walnuts. J Proteome. 2016;142:62–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Food ChemistryWestfälische Wilhelms-Universität MünsterMünsterGermany
  2. 2.Analytical Food ChemistryUniversity of StuttgartStuttgartGermany

Personalised recommendations