Biotechnology and Alleviation of Food Allergenicity - Essay Example

BIOTECHNOLOGY AND ALLEVIATION OF FOOD ALLERGENICITY By (Name) Unit Professor’s name University (Name) Course Date Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Introduction 3 Benefits of biotechnology in food production 5 The association between biotechnologies on food allergies 5 Reducing the allergenic potential of foodstuffs 9 FAO/WHO decision-making tree 9 Antisense DNA techniques 12 Conclusion and recommendations 13 Introduction Biotechnology involves applying molecular biology techniques, recombinant DNA technologies, or bioengineering (in vitro transfer of genes) in the development of various products or imparting organisms with specific. The organisms subjected to biotechnological interventions have superior qualities and can overcome natural physiologic barriers associated with reproduction or recombination (Mohajer Maghari and M Ardekani, 2011, p.3). Genetic engineering realizes a change in the source of information in animals, plants, cells, and their organelles by modifying the protein amounts that organisms make in relation to the additional new gene. In addition, genetic engineering modifies the metabolic as well as protein pathways within an organism to realize its set objectives. Contrary to conventional breeding approaches, which select transferrable genes at random, genetic engineering ensures the selection of the required genes for predicted outcomes (Mandell et al., 2015, p.57). The food requirements for any given population are dynamic depending on the patterns in the consumption of food, fluctuations in the amounts of food supply, emergence of new food options, as well as changes in the demographic trends of the population. Consequently, the global food markets continue to receive new foodstuffs that have undergone genetic engineering for commercial purposes (Manzanares-Palenzuela et al., 2015, p.22). The application of biotechnology approaches aim at increasing the quantity and quality of foods produced. Despite the existing food safety and regulatory standards applied on foodstuffs, there is no full guarantee on the safety of foodstuffs. Majority of the foodstuffs contain noxious chemicals, carcinogens, and other toxins, which must be within the acceptable limits before their release into the markets. For instance, genetically engineered potatoes with a high level of solanine never enter the food market. The presence of new proteins in the genetically engineered foodstuffs has a close association with an increase in food allergies (Manzanares-Palenzuela et al., 2015, p.23). Allergies to foodstuffs occur because of abnormal responses by an individual’s immune system to a component of food that is not harmful. The hypersensitivity witnessed following exposure to the food allergen follows a chain of reactions set in motion by immunoglobulins (IgE). The initial exposures to the food allergen are usually silent but lead to the secretion of IgE, which binds to mast cells as well as basophils during subsequent exposures causing release o histamines that cause the symptoms witnessed in allergic responses (Séralini et al., 2011, p.10). There is no conclusive data regarding all the food allergens or non-allergenic proteins that can form the basis for the prediction of new protein allergenicity patterns. In addition, methods for defining or predicting the risk of new proteins as allergens are yet to be conclusively validated. Instead, the food industry relies on assessing the concentration, stability, solubility, molecular complexity, and foreignness of new molecules in establishing their allergenic risks. The judicious application of these standards aids the decisions regarding the potential allergenicity of a new protein. The stability of a protein or its ability to resist enzymatic degradation represents the conspicuously apply standard in determining allergenic risk (Verma et al., 2011, p.15). Benefits of biotechnology in food production There are various reasons that prompted the development of genetically modified organisms (GNOs) particularly the genetically modified plants (GMPs). In the first place, genetic engineering enhances food production to meet the skyrocketing demands for foodstuffs across the globe. Conventional production methods have failed to realize the threshold for the food requirements leading to hunger, starvation, and loss of lives. In addition, the hostile climatic conditions that hinder food production and survival of the conventional breeds of crops and animals have worsened the situation (Chiter et al., 2000, p.167). Some biotechnology companies continue to spearhead the development of crops that possess superior agronomic characteristics making them resistant to diseases, insects, and herbicides. Moreover, some of the varieties show considerable resistance to drought thereby tolerating harsh weather. In addition, biotechnology results in commodities with higher nutritive value, taste better and last longer thus directly benefiting the consumer (Conner et al., 2003, p.27). The association between biotechnologies on food allergies Over the years, there have been growing concerns of genetically engineered foodstuffs contributing to a higher allergenic risk than the conventionally produced foodstuffs. Adding new proteins in plants during the genetic engineering process increases the allergenic risks in hypersensitive individuals following initial exposure to the proteins. Essentially, genetically modified organisms have a higher allergenic potential in comparison to the natural varieties of foodstuffs (Domingo and Bordonaba, 2011, p.735). Biotechnology entails introducing a new gene to alter the chromosomal sequence of plants or animals thus leading to the synthesis of new proteins. The new proteins have the capacity to elicit allergic responses considering the fact that the new protein may be an allergen itself or mimic the behavior of existing allergens. The expression of new proteins may result to unintended effects by altering the metabolism of plants thus leading to up-regulation of proteins or allergens that elicit an allergenic response in high concentrations (Nap et al., 2003, p.11). It is equally important to consider alternative routes of exposure to the potential allergens that may sensitize individuals considering the widespread use of transgenic plants in industrial processing. For instance, the commercial manufacture of transgenic soy that contains food allergens potentially induces respiratory sensitization following the release of dust laden with allergenic materials. There is also the possibility of foreign allergens stemming from transgenic plants appearing in processed foodstuffs without the required labels thus potentially triggering severe allergic reactions in hypersensitive individuals who ingest them unknowingly (Muraro et al., 2014, p.1010). On the flipside, biotechnology has untapped potential whose application can lead to the reduction of allergenic risks posed by processed foodstuffs. In recent years, it has become possible to reduce the allergenic potency of plant proteins through the application of antisense technologies. Moreover, the careful application of biotechnological interventions is useful in the replacement of potent allergens with homologous proteins that perform the same biological functions but posses minimal allergenic potential (Mustorp et al., 2011, p.5236). It is important to note that there is insufficient empirical evidence confirming that bioengineered foodstuffs present a higher allergenic risk in comparison to the products from natural plant varieties. Nevertheless, the fact that genetically modified organisms may contain significant amounts of toxic chemicals that may harm the consumer or environment in higher concentrations has heightened the calls for strict evaluation of genetically modified foodstuffs before their release to the markets (Séralini et al., 2011, p.7). The occurrence of food allergies varies from one person to another and results from the exposure of a hypersensitive individual to a variety of foodstuffs. According to the Codex Committee on Food Labeling, which assessed the allergenic potential of various foodstuffs across the world, it was established that some foods have a high propensity for triggering allergic reactions. These common allergenic foodstuffs include tree nuts, wheat, crustacean, fish, eggs, milk, soybeans, and peanuts. Cumulatively, these foodstuffs account for approximately 90% of the severest allergic responses recorded across the globe (Verma et al., 2011, p.13). Recent literature demonstrates that over 160 food varieties have the capacity to trigger sporadic allergic responses in hypersensitive individuals. Moreover, vegetables and fresh fruits have been shown to trigger allergic reactions in cases of Oral Allergy Syndrome. Notable is the fact that the Codex list does not include these potentially allergenic foodstuffs that trigger IgE mediated reactions in hypersensitive individuals based on scientific literature (Bindslev-Jensen et al., 2003, p.84). Food allergies can be mild reactions to a food component by a hypersensitive individual or a debilitating and life threatening occurrence that requires emergency interventions. The threshold for eliciting an allergic reaction following the ingestion of a food component varies from one individual to another. However, hypersensitive individuals may present with symptoms following minimal exposure to the allergenic components in the foodstuffs. Moreover, severe allergic reactions may also occur following exposure to small amounts of the allergenic components (Pedersen et al., 2004, p.436). Prevention of the allergic reactions involves implementation of avoidance diets with restrictions on ingesting the allergenic food components. However, due to the minuteness of the threshold required to trigger an allergic reaction, some hypersensitive individuals experience challenges while trying to adhere to the avoidance diets. In some instances, they get accidental exposure to the allergenic food components especially in cases where there is no proper labeling of foodstuffs thus leading to a hypersensitivity reaction. In emergency situations, administration of medications such as antihistamines or steroids may help to minimize the effects of the reaction (Pedersen et al., 2004, p.438). Majority of the food allergens are protein components despite the fact that other food classifications may serve as haptens. A significant number of food allergens are yet to be identified or characterized thus posing a greater risk to hypersensitive individuals. Many food allergens belong to known groups of proteins hence very useful in the isolation of allergens from unknown sources. Despite the fact that plants forming the basis of staple foods contain several varieties of proteins, their allergenic potential remains discriminately low (Jones, 2015, p.16). Reducing the allergenic potential of foodstuffs There are different methods applied by biotechnology companies in their attempt to reduce food allergenicity. These include application of the decision tree developed by FAO/WHO consensus panel and the antisense DNA techniques. The subsequent section evaluates these two approaches. FAO/WHO decision-making tree The World Health Organization and FAO established a consensus panel that met in Rome in 2001 leading to the adoption of a decision tree for evaluating the allergenic risk of new proteins introduced in genetically engineered foodstuffs. The decision tree explores two potential scenarios in establishing the allergenic risk of the foodstuffs under evaluation. The first scenario entails analyzing a new gene suspected to originate from a known allergenic source whereas the second scenario considers the gene as originating from a source with unknown allergenic potential. The diagram below shows the decision tree used in evaluating the allergenic potential of genetically engineered foodstuffs (Schaffner et al., 2015, p.779). Figure 1: Decision tree for evaluating the allergenic potential of new proteins in genetically engineered foods. The evaluation involves investigating homologous sequences of the new proteins in relation to known allergens in case the introduced gene originates from allergenic sources. The protein is considered allergenic if an identical sequence of more than six contiguous amino acids or if there is a 35% identity in the compared sequence of amino acids. In the event there are no identical sequences of homologous amino acids, the new protein is subjected to serum screening (Sforza et al., 2011, p.225). The serum screen involves the application of in vitro techniques using serum from individuals with known allergies to the known allergen closely associated with the new protein. In case the new protein triggers a serum IgE reaction, then it is a likely allergenic compound whereas a negative result provides the leeway for testing the stability of the protein. The protein’s resistance to the enzymatic activity of pepsin is applied in the analysis of the stability of the new protein. The final stage involves assessing the ability of the new protein to sensitize an animal following oral ingestion or administration of the protein in the intra-peritoneal cavity (Atalay et al., 2011, p.390). The second possibility involves assessing the new protein originating from a source with unknown allergenic potential. The investigation involves evaluating the homologous sequences of the new protein in comparison to known allergens. Any similarities in the resultant sequences of compounds under investigation as shown above confirm the allergenic potential of the new protein. On the other hand, lack of similarities provides the leeway for targeted serum tests that should involve a minimum of 50 clinically characterized patients (Zimmermann et al., 2000, p.215). If the new protein lacks the capacity of eliciting reactions from the IgE, the investigation proceeds to assess the resistance of the protein to pepsin activity. Moreover, an assessment of the immunogenicity of the protein using animal models is undertaken. Decisions using the criterion developed by the consensus panel established by FAO in collaboration with WHO are very useful in the prediction of the allergenic potential of a new protein thus help to reduce allergenic reactions associated with genetically engineered foodstuffs (Manzanares-Palenzuela et al., 2015, p.26). Antisense DNA techniques Antisense DNA technique is an approach used in the inhibition or down-regulation of synthesis of a targeted protein with the help of antisense RNA or DNA molecules. An antisense molecule is a RNA or DNA that perfectly complements with the targeted nucleotide sequence that is present in a specific cell. Antisense molecules exert their effects through two potential molecules namely the antisense strategy that targets mRNA whereas the anti-gene strategy targets the DNA as well as the genes located within the cell’s nucleus (Hawkins and Morris, 2010, p.169; Rifai et al., 2006, p.972) Biotechnology companies employ the well established antisense strategy with a wide array of in vivo and in vitro applications in the alleviation of food allergenicity. The antisense strategy relies on the known capacity of the 100% complimentary RNA or DNA sequences while interlocking or hybridizing the targeted mRNA to inhibit its translation of the targeted protein. Inhibition occurs when the complimentary RNA attaches on the binding site of the ribosomal subunits thus blocking the translation of signals that would otherwise initiate protein synthesis. Another alternative for the inhibition involves forming a double-stranded complex of the DNA and RNA thus increasing the susceptibility of the RNA to digestion by RNAse H (Chiter et al., 2000, 165). On the other hand, the anti-gene strategy is still undergoing developments to establish a better understanding of the specific mechanisms involved. Generally, the anti-gene mechanism is realized through the action of either sense or antisense DNA that complements the sequence of the DNA within the cell nucleus resulting in a triplex structure. The resulting triplex is responsible for preventing the transcription of the coding sequence of the DNA into mRNA thus preventing protein synthesis (Paulovich et al., 2008, p.1388; Zhang et al., 2010, p.12) In recent years, antisense techniques have proven to be useful in the reduction of the allergenic potential of new proteins. In addition, biotechnology companies continue to explore various possibilities for replacing new proteins that have a high allergenic potential with less potent homologous proteins performing similar functions. In this way, the ability of a new protein to trigger an allergic reaction reduces significantly without alteration to the quality of the resultant food products, their quality, and shelf lives (Rifai et al., 2006, p.976). Conclusion and recommendations There is a dire need for an integrated as well as stepwise approach while assessing the safety of foodstuffs produced through application of biotechnological approaches. Assessment for analyzing the allergenicity of foodstuffs should be undertaken basing on each case considering the unique characteristics of the several types of proteins. In order to reduce the prevalent cases of allergic reactions following ingestion of foodstuffs from allergenic sources, it is important that biotechnology companies undertake a comprehensive assessment of the allergenic potential of the foodstuffs and label them properly before their release into the markets. Moreover, the relevant regulatory authorities championing for food safety should facilitate the continuous review of the decision tree utilized in the assessment of the allergenic potential of foodstuffs while factoring in the ever-growing evidence on food allergens. It is important to continue undertaking extensive research activities for purposes of documenting the least amounts of allergenic materials that triggers an allergic response in hypersensitive individuals for purposes of reducing the allergenic risks associated with genetically engineered foodstuffs. Biotechnology companies and food regulatory authorities should spearhead research activities that will be useful in identifying and characterizing the unknown allergens that trigger immunologic responses. The data obtained from these investigations will contribute to the expansion of the databases for proteins and genes essential for the assessment of allergenicity of foodstuffs. Suitable animal models for assessing the allergenic potential of foodstuffs should be established through research activities. Finally, it is important that biotechnology companies heighten post-market surveillance activities in order to identify any cases that arise after ingestion of the genetically engineered foodstuffs. References Atalay, Y.T., Vermeir, S., Witters, D., Vergauwe, N., Verbruggen, B., Verboven, P., Nicolai, B.M., Lammertyn, J., 2011. Microfluidic analytical systems for food analysis. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 22, 386–404. Bindslev-Jensen, C., Sten, E., Earl, L.K., Crevel, R.W.R., Bindslev-Jensen, U., Hansen, T.K., Skov, P.S., Poulsen, L.K., 2003. Assessment of the potential allergenicity of ice structuring protein type III HPLC 12 using the FAO/WHO 2001 decision tree for novel foods. Food Chem. Toxicol. 41, 81–87. Chiter, A., Forbes, J.M., Blair, G.E., 2000. DNA stability in plant tissues: implications for the possible transfer of genes from genetically modified food. FEBS Lett. 481, 164–168. Conner, A.J., Glare, T.R., Nap, J.-P., 2003. The release of genetically modified crops into the environment. Plant J. 33, 19–46. Domingo, J.L., Bordonaba, J.G., 2011. A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants. Environ. Int. 37, 734–742. Hawkins, P.G., Morris, K.V., 2010. Transcriptional regulation of Oct4 by a long non-coding RNA antisense to Oct4-pseudogene 5. Transcription 1, 165–175. Jones, H.D., 2015. Regulatory uncertainty over genome editing. Nat. Plants 1, 14011. Mandell, D.J., Lajoie, M.J., Mee, M.T., Takeuchi, R., Kuznetsov, G., Norville, J.E., Gregg, C.J., Stoddard, B.L., Church, G.M., 2015. Biocontainment of genetically modified organisms by synthetic protein design. Nature 518, 55–60. Manzanares-Palenzuela, C.L., Martín-Fernández, B., López, M.S.-P., López-Ruiz, B., 2015. Electrochemical genosensors as innovative tools for detection of genetically modified organisms. TrAC Trends Anal. Chem. 66, 19–31. Mohajer Maghari, B., M Ardekani, A., 2011. Genetically modified foods and social concerns. Avicenna J. Med. Biotechnol. 3, 109–117. Muraro, A., Werfel, T., Hoffmann-Sommergruber, K., Roberts, G., Beyer, K., Bindslev-Jensen, C., Cardona, V., Dubois, A., Dutoit, G., Eigenmann, P., others, 2014. EAACI food allergy and anaphylaxis guidelines: diagnosis and management of food allergy. Allergy 69, 1008–1025. Mustorp, S.L., Drømtorp, S.M., Holck, A.L., 2011. Multiplex, quantitative, ligation-dependent probe amplification for determination of allergens in food. J. Agric. Food Chem. 59, 5231–5239. Nap, J.-P., Metz, P.L., Escaler, M., Conner, A.J., 2003. The release of genetically modified crops into the environment. Plant J. 33, 1–18. Paulovich, A.G., Whiteaker, J.R., Hoofnagle, A.N., Wang, P., 2008. The interface between biomarker discovery and clinical validation: the tar pit of the protein biomarker pipeline. Proteomics-Clin. Appl. 2, 1386–1402. Pedersen, M.H., Hansen, T.K., Sten, E., Seguro, K., Ohtsuka, T., Morita, A., Bindslev-Jensen, C., Poulsen, L.K., 2004. Evaluation of the potential allergenicity of the enzyme microbial transglutaminase using the 2001 FAO/WHO Decision Tree. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 48, 434–440. Rifai, N., Gillette, M.A., Carr, S.A., 2006. Protein biomarker discovery and validation: the long and uncertain path to clinical utility. Nat. Biotechnol. 24, 971–983. Schaffner, D.W., Brown, L.G., Ripley, D., Reimann, D., Koktavy, N., Blade, H., Nicholas, D., 2015. Quantitative data analysis to determine best food cooling practices in US restaurants. J. Food Prot. 78, 778–783. Séralini, G.-E., Mesnage, R., Clair, E., Gress, S., De Vendômois, J.S., Cellier, D., 2011. Genetically modified crops safety assessments: present limits and possible improvements. Environ. Sci. Eur. 23, 10. Sforza, S., Corradini, R., Tedeschi, T., Marchelli, R., 2011. Food analysis and food authentication by peptide nucleic acid (PNA)-based technologies. Chem. Soc. Rev. 40, 221–232. Verma, C., Nanda, S., K Singh, R., B Singh, R., Mishra, S., 2011. A review on impacts of genetically modified food on human health. Open Nutraceuticals J. 4. Zhang, L., Xiao, H., Karlan, S., Zhou, H., Gross, J., Elashoff, D., Akin, D., Yan, X., Chia, D., Karlan, B., others, 2010. Discovery and preclinical validation of salivary transcriptomic and proteomic biomarkers for the non-invasive detection of breast cancer. PloS One 5, e15573. Zimmermann, A., Lüthy, J., Pauli, U., 2000. Event specific transgene detection in Bt11 corn by quantitative PCR at the integration site. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 33, 210–216.  Read More