Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry

, Volume 408, Issue 22, pp 5973–5984 | Cite as

Food allergen analysis for processed food using a novel extraction method to eliminate harmful reagents for both ELISA and lateral-flow tests

  • Kaori Ito
  • Takayuki Yamamoto
  • Yuriko Oyama
  • Rieko Tsuruma
  • Eriko Saito
  • Yoshikazu Saito
  • Takeshi Ozu
  • Tsutomu Honjoh
  • Reiko Adachi
  • Shinobu Sakai
  • Hiroshi Akiyama
  • Masahiro Shoji
Paper in Forefront
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Immunoanalysis for Environmental Monitoring and Human Health

Abstract

Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) is commonly used to determine food allergens in food products. However, a significant number of ELISAs give an erroneous result, especially when applied to highly processed food. Accordingly, an improved ELISA, which utilizes an extraction solution comprising the surfactant sodium lauryl sulfate (SDS) and reductant 2-mercaptoethanol (2-ME), has been specially developed to analyze food allergens in highly processed food by enhancing analyte protein extraction. Recently, however, the use of 2-ME has become undesirable. In the present study, a new extraction solution containing a human- and eco-friendly reductant, which is convenient to use at the food manufacturing site, has been established. Among three chemicals with different reducing properties, sodium sulfite, tris(3-hydroxypropyl)phosphine, and mercaptoethylamine sodium sulfite was selected as a 2-ME substitute. The protein extraction ability of SDS/0.1 M sodium sulfite solution was comparable to that of SDS/2-ME solution. Next, the ELISA performance for egg, milk, wheat, peanut, and buckwheat was evaluated by using model-processed foods and commercially available food products. The data showed that the SDS/0.1 M sulfite ELISA significantly correlated with the SDS/2-ME ELISA for all food allergens examined (p < 0.01), thereby establishing the validity of the SDS/0.1 M sulfite ELISA performance. Furthermore, the new SDS/0.1 M sulfite solution was investigated for its applicability to the lateral-flow (LF) test. The result demonstrated the successful analysis of food allergens in processed food, showing consistency with the SDS/0.1 M sulfite ELISA results. Accordingly, a harmonized analysis system for processed food comprising a screening LF test and a quantitative ELISA with identical extraction solution has been established. The ELISA based on the SDS/0.1 M sulfite extraction solution has now been authorized as the revised official method for food allergen analysis in Japan.

Keywords

Food allergy Food allergen Food allergen analysis ELISA Lateral-flow 

References

  1. 1.
    Directive 2003/89/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 November 2003 amending Directive 2000/13/EC as regards indication of the ingredients present in foodstuffs. Off J Eur Union L308/15–18. https://www.fsai.ie/uploadedFiles/Dir2003.89.pdf. Accessed 1 Dec 2015.
  2. 2.
    Commission Regulation (EC) No 41/2009 of 20 January 2009 concerning the composition and labeling of foodstuffs suitable for people intolerant to gluten. Off J Eur Union L16/3–5. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:016:0003:0005:EN:PDF. Accessed 1 Dec 2015.
  3. 3.
    Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-282, Title II). Congr Rec 150:118 STAT. 905–911. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/GuidanceRegulation/UCM179394.pdf. Accessed 1 Dec 2015.
  4. 4.
    Food Labeling; Gluten-Free Labeling of Foods (2013) Fed Regist 78:47154–47179. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-08-05/pdf/2013-18813.pdf. Accessed 1 Dec 2015.
  5. 5.
    Akiyama H, Imai T, Ebisawa M. Japan food allergen labelling regulation – history and evaluation. Adv Food Nutr Res. 2011;62:139–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Codex Standard for Foods for Special Dietary Use for Persons Intolerant to Gluten, Codex Stan 118-1979, adopted in 1979; amended 1983; revised 2008. http://www.foedevarestyrelsen.dk/SiteCollectionDocuments/25_PDF_word_filer%20til%20download/07kontor/Maerkning/Codex%20standard%20for%20gluten.pdf. Accessed 1 Dec 2015.
  7. 7.
    Diaz-Amigo C. Antibody-based detection methods: from theory to practice. In: Popping B, Diaz-Amigo C, Hoenicke K, Eds. Molecular biological and immunological techniques and applications for food chemists. Hoboken: WILEY; 2010. pp. 223–245.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Williams KM, Westphal CD, Shriver-Lake LC. Determination of egg proteins in snack food and noodles. J AOAC Int. 2004;87:1485–91.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Faeste CK, Løvberg KE, Lindvik H, Egaas E. Extractability, stability, and allergenicity of egg white proteins in differently heat-processed foods. J AOAC Int. 2007;90:427–36.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Westphal CD, Pereira MR, Raybourne RB, Williams KM. Evaluation of extraction buffers using the current approach of detecting multiple allergenic and nonallergenic proteins in food. J AOAC Int. 2004;87:1458–65.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Poms RE, Capelletti C, Anklam E. Effect of roasting history and buffer composition on peanut protein extraction efficiency. Mol Nutr Food Res. 2004;48:459–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    García E, Llorente M, Hernando A, Kieffer R, Wieser H, Méndez E. Development of a general procedure for complete extraction of gliadins for heat processed and unheated foods. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2005;17:529–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Immer U, Haas-Lauterbach S. Gluten Detection. In: Popping B, Diaz-Amigo C, Hoenicke K, Eds. Molecular biological and immunological techniques and applications for food chemists. Hoboken: WILEY; 2010. pp. 359–376.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Watanabe Y, Aburatani K, Mizumura T, Sakai M, Muraoka S, Mamegosi S, et al. Novel ELISA for the detection of raw and processed egg using extraction buffer containing a surfactant and a reducing agent. J Immunol Methods. 2005;300:115–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shoji M.Egg allergen detection. In: Popping B, Diaz-Amigo C, Hoenicke K, editors. Molecular biological and immunological techniques and applications for food chemists. Hoboken: WILEY; 2010. pp. 311–334.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fu TJ, Maks N, Banaszewski K. Effect of heat treatment on the quantitative detection of egg protein residues by commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay test kits. J Agric Food Chem. 2010;58:4831–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Parker CH, Khuda SE, Pereira M, Ross MM, Fu TJ, Fan X, et al. Multi-allergen quantitation 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare of Japan (2006) Notification [Shokuanhatsu] No. 0622003 of June 22, 2006.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    United Nation (2011) Globally harmonized system of classification and labeling of chemicals (GHS) (4th revised edition). https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/danger/publi/ghs/ghs_rev04/English/ST-SG-AC10-30-Rev4e.pdf. Accessed 1 Dec 2015.
  20. 20.
    Schubert-Ullrich P, Rudolf J, Ansari P, Galler B, Führer M, Molinelli A, et al. Commercialized rapid immunoanalytical tests for determination of allergenic food proteins: an overview. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2009;395:69–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Matsuda R, Yoshioka Y, Akiyama H, Aburatani K, Watanabe Y, Matsumoto T, et al. Interlaboratory evaluation of two enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay kits for the detection of egg, milk, wheat, buckwheat, and peanut in foods. J AOAC Int. 2006;89:1600–8.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Consumer Affairs Agency, Government of Japan (2010) Notification [Syousyokuhyou] No. 286 of 10 September 2010.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    World Health Organization (1999) WHO Food Additives Series: 42. Evaluation of national assessments of intake of sulfite.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Taylor SL, Nordlee JA, Niemann LM, Lambrecht DM. Allergen immunoassays—considerations for use of naturally incurred standards. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2009;395:83–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nair B, Elmore AR. Cosmetic Ingredients Review Expert Panel. Final report on the safety assessment of sodium sulfite, potassium sulfite, ammonium sulfite, sodium bisulfite, ammonium bisulfite, sodium metabisulfite, and potassium metabisulfite. Int J Toxicol. 2003;22:63–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Consumer Affairs Agency, Government of Japan (2014) Notification [Shousyokuhyou] No. 36 of 26 March 2014.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kaori Ito
    • 1
  • Takayuki Yamamoto
    • 1
  • Yuriko Oyama
    • 1
  • Rieko Tsuruma
    • 1
  • Eriko Saito
    • 1
  • Yoshikazu Saito
    • 1
  • Takeshi Ozu
    • 1
  • Tsutomu Honjoh
    • 1
  • Reiko Adachi
    • 2
  • Shinobu Sakai
    • 2
  • Hiroshi Akiyama
    • 2
  • Masahiro Shoji
    • 1
  1. 1.Morinaga Institute of Biological Science, Inc.Kanazawa-ku, YokohamaJapan
  2. 2.National Institute of Health SciencesSetagaya-ku, TokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations