Abstract
Background
Laboratory Animal Allergy (LAA) has been considered a risk for the workers since 1989 by the NIOSH. About one third of the Laboratory Animal Workers (LAWs) can manifest symptoms to LAA as asthma, rhinitis, conjunctivitis and cutaneous reactions. The prevalence of LAA-induced clinical symptoms has been estimated with a great variability (4–44%) also due to the different methodologies applied.
Objective
Evaluate the prevalence of IgE positivity to mouse and rat allergens in LAWs and assess which factors are predisposing to sensitization among subjects exposed to laboratory animals in the workplace.
Methods
One hundred LAWs were invited to fill out a questionnaire regarding current allergic symptoms, atopic history, home environment, previous and current occupational history. IgE reactivity versus specific allergens was evaluated with ImmunoCAP ISAC.
Results
Out of one hundred LAWs, 18% had a serum susceptibility to mouse and/or rat allergens and 42% reported to have occupational allergy symptoms. Combining the results acquired by ImmunoCAP ISAC and questionnaire, 17% of LAWs have been defined as LAWs-LAA positive since they present a positive IgE response and allergy symptoms, 1% LAWs-LAA sensitized, 25% LAWs-LAA symptomatic and 57% LAWs-LAA negative. Presence of previous allergy symptoms in work and life environment were significantly related to LAWs-LAA positive/sensitized.
Conclusions
The study aimed to define the immunological profile of LAWs using the proteomic array as an innovative approach in the study of environmental and occupational exposure to allergens. We suggested a definition of LAWs-LAA considering serum IgE response and presence of allergy symptoms. The proposed approach has the advantage to provide a standard methodology for evaluating the specific IgE responsiveness to animal allergens in specific workplace also considering the immunological profile of workers referred to exposure in life and occupational environment.
Keywords: occupational allergy, laboratory animals, protein microarray, questionnaire, health workers
1. Introduction
Occupational allergy diseases result from a complex interaction between endogenous and exogenous factors, as well as individual susceptibility and level of exposure to allergens both in work and life environment. Clinical symptoms can be respiratory, ocular, cutaneous or systemic resulting in asthma, rhinitis, conjunctivitis, dermatitis or systemic diseases. Numerous substances commonly used at work can be responsible for several allergic conditions; high-molecular-weight (glyco) proteins—vegetable and animal—and low-molecular-weight chemical substances can be able to induce occupational asthma (OA), occupational rhinitis (OR), conjunctivitis and cutaneous reactions in sensitized workers. OA represents about the 25% of respiratory diseases in the workplace and it has been evaluated that a 17% of asthma in adults is due to occupational exposures as reported by NIOSH (https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/asthma/epidemiology.html). Moreover, prospective cohort studies reported an incidence rate of 0.2–3.5 per 100 person/year in workers exposed to laboratory animals [1]–[3]. Estimates of the incidence of OA in the general population ranged from 17 to 174 new cases per million active workers per year, suggesting an underestimation in most countries and the need for early diagnosis, identification of exposure agents, treatment and management of this disease [1],[3],[4].
Laboratory Animal Allergy (LAA) has been considered a risk for the workers by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) in 1998 in the USA [5]–[7]. The sensitization generally occurs within the first three years of employment following exposure mainly to mice and rat urinary proteins [8],[9]. It has been reported that about one third of the Laboratory Animal Workers (here identified as LAWs) [7] can manifest symptoms to LAA; the prevalence of LAA-induced clinical symptoms in LAWs has been estimated with a great variability in terms of percentages (also due to the different methodologies applied) passing from 4–22% to 11–44% [10]–[16].
The onset of symptoms—since the beginning of exposure—seems to occur within the first three years of work [11],[17],[18]. The most important and commonly reported disease for LAA is asthma that may develop in one out of ten workers exposed to rats [19],[20]. The inhalation is the main route of exposure to animal allergens; in addition to eye contact, direct skin contact, animal bites, needle-stick injuries with a contaminated needle containing animal allergens [21].
Although the LAA is referred to all laboratory animals, rats and mice are those mainly responsible for LAA not because they have more allergic power but because they are more diffusely used in biomedical research in Europe [22]. Mice and rat urines represent the main source of allergens though other sources of rodent allergens are hair, dander, saliva and serum [23]. For different laboratory animal species such as rabbit, hair and saliva are the principal sources of allergens [24]. Several laboratory animals' allergens belong to lipocalins, small proteins involved in the transport of some hydrophobic molecules with low molecular weight, such as urinary odorants of rodents functioning as pheromones or pheromone-binding proteins [25]–[28]. Some allergens of the laboratory rodents have been described in the literature—Mus m 1, Mus m 2, Rat n 1, and Rat n 4 for mouse and/or rat respectively are the most cited [9],[25],[29],[30].
The study is aimed to further investigate characteristics of LAWs in relation to allergy symptoms and serum IgE response and evaluate the effect of occupational exposure in animal facilities in terms of immunological sensitization.
2. Materials and method
The study was designed with a multidisciplinary approach (as a collaboration between biologists, physicians and statistics competent in the areas of animal facility, clinical allergy, molecular allergy, occupational medicine and epidemiology) through a specific questionnaire that takes into consideration the LAWs' clinical history, previous and actual occupational exposure to laboratory animals, exposure to animals in living environments, physical examination and serological evaluation of IgE positivity with proteomic array.
2.1. Laboratory animal workers (LAWs)
The study was approved by the Institutional Ethical Committee of the Istituto Dermopatico dell'Immacolata, Rome. All subjects signed an informed consent form when undergoing all tests. In one hundred LAWs the susceptibility to allergens of animal and vegetable, food allergens, and other was estimated using the protein microarray [31].
All workers were invited to fill out a questionnaire on current allergic symptoms, atopic history, home environment, previous and current occupational history, job description. The personnel involved in the care and use of animals were scientists, animal technicians, veterinarians working in different animal facilities.
The questionnaire used in this study was drawn from the literature [32] and subjected to a validation process through the following steps: (a) translation from English into Italian made by the researchers; (b) translation from Italian to English done by a native speaker; (c) comparison of English and Italian versions not included in the group of 100 LAWs studied; (d) assessment of the problems that emerged from the individual questions; (e) elaboration of the definitive questionnaire used and administered to 100 LAWs. Validation is a process that is still in place to assess the reliability of an instrument such as the clinical-anamnestic questionnaire [33].
2.2. Multiplexing IgE detection
Specific IgE for allergenic molecules were detected by ISAC 103 microarray test (Phadia Multiplexing Diagnostics, Vienna, Austria) including the ISAC microarray system, all allergens and reagents, the spotted microarray slides, the software, and performed as previously reported [34]. The testing procedures have been carried out following the manufacturer's instructions. A customized version of the ISAC microarray (ISAC Exp96) has been developed to carry out the characterization of the IgE reactivity towards the new allergens not available on the commercial ISAC 103 allowing to identify mouse (Mus m 1, Mus m 4) and rat (Rat n 4) allergens. Details on biochemical, immunological, and clinical features of each allergen are available via the Allergome website (www.allergome.org) [35]. Biochips with different number of spotted allergens have been used during this study; both ISAC 103 and Exp96 IgE testing were performed as previously reported [36].
2.3. Data storing, processing and statistics
All data obtained by questionnaire and by microarray test have been used to create a single database. Statistical analysis was carried out with IBM SPSS software (version 22) and a criterion of probability value of p < 0.05 was defined. Crude prevalence ratios were calculated according to the LAWs-LAA grouped by positive, sensitized, symptomatic and negative and differences in categorical study variables were evaluated by using chi-squared test. Prevalence ratios (PRs) were calculated by multiple logistic regression analysis in order to determine the relationship between risk factors and the serological susceptibility.
3. Results
Study population is represented by 72 females (mean age 36.5 ± 8.05 std dev) and 28 males (mean age 37.9 ± 8.20) with a working history of 8.32 years (std dev = 6.55) and 6.31 years (std dev = 5.372) respectively.
According to information acquired by questionnaire, allergic symptoms were highly prevalent in the study group: 71% of LAWs declared to have had allergic symptoms/to be symptomatic; 12% reported to be allergic to pet animals. Regarding occupational exposure refers to workers handling with laboratory animals, 49% reported a previous occupational exposure with laboratory animals and 92% of them with mouse and/or rat. Among 100 LAWs, 9% reported to have had allergic symptoms to laboratory animals but only 8% resulted to be mouse and/or rat positive. Current professional exposure to laboratory animals was reported by 97% of workers and 93% of them handled with mouse and/or rat. A percentage of 42% of LAWs presented occupational allergic symptoms, following exposure to source in workplace, which occur mainly (26%) within the first three years of work. Most of the reported symptoms were nose symptoms such as sneezing, runny and stuffy nose for 40% workers, red and itchy eyes for 26% workers; 15% reported chest tightness including coughing, asthma and wheeze and 13% skin symptoms including rash, hives (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Prevalence of reported allergy symptoms among 100 LAWs.
Multiplexing IgE detection on 100 LAWs showed the presence of IgE against food allergens, aeroallergens (vegetables and animals) and other allergens. All allergens were grouped in five subclasses as indicated: Mouse and/or rat and their related, other animals, indoor, outdoor, food and venom (Figure 2). Some of the animal allergens tested were mouse, rat, cat, dog and horse; 18 LAWs were positive for Mus m 1 or Mus m 4 or Rat n 4 animal allergens. The immunological profile of the 18 LAWs IgE positive to mouse and/or rat allergens is represented in Figure 3.
Figure 2. Positive and negative IgE response to allergens for each of 100 LAWs.
Figure 3. Immunological profile of 18 LAWs positive to mouse and/or rat allergens by grouped class of allergens (Numbers next to the points represent the sum of allergens in each grouped class referred to serum IgE positivity).
According to the positivity of specific serum IgE laboratory animal allergens and the presence of allergy symptoms the distribution of 100 LAWs is showed in Table 1.
Table 1. Distribution of 100 LAWs-LAA considering serum IgE* response and allergy symptoms**.
| LAWs-LAA | Serum IgE + Allergy symptoms + |
Serum IgE + Allergy symptoms − |
Serum IgE − Allergy symptoms + |
Serum IgE − Allergy symptoms − |
| LAWs-LAA positive | 17 | |||
| LAWs-LAA sensitized | 1 | |||
| LAWs-LAA symptomatic | 25 | |||
| LAWs-LAA negative | 57 |
*Mouse and/or rat IgE response determined by protein microarray. **Actual occupational allergy symptoms referred in the questionnaire.
Crude prevalence ratios were calculated and statistical significance between studied variables has been evaluated for the LAWs-LAA (Table 2). In this study, we choice to give a central role to serological IgE positivity to mouse and/or rat allergens and on this assumption we group together positive and sensitized category since the second category consists of only one worker. The comparison between LAWs-LAA positive/sensitized and LAWs-LAA symptomatic respect to LAWs-LAA negative showed a statistically significant association with the presence of experienced allergy symptoms, personal history or domestic animal or previous occupational allergy, allergy symptoms working with animals.
Table 2. Characteristics of LAWs according to serum IgE response and allergy symptoms (N = 100).
| Variable | LAWs-LAA positive/sensitized1 | LAWS-LAA symptomatic2 | LAWS-LAA negative3 | p value | |
| N (%) | N (%) | N (%) | * | # | |
| Age in year, mean (std) | 37.2 (8.14) | 36.6 (8.60) | 36.1 (7.49) | ||
| Gender | |||||
| Male | 6 (33.3%) | 7 (28.0%) | 15 (26.3%) | 0.563 | 0.874 |
| Female | 12 (66.7%) | 18 (72.0%) | 42 (73.7%) | ||
| Age class | |||||
| 20–30 | 5 (27.8%) | 7 (28.0%) | 16 (28.1%) | 0.405 | 0.911 |
| 31–40 | 10 (55.6%) | 9 (36.0%) | 23 (40.4%) | ||
| 41+ | 3 (16.7%) | 9 (36.0%) | 18 (31.6%) | ||
| Experienced allergy symptoms | |||||
| Yes | 17 (94.4%) | 24 (96.0%) | 30 (52.6%) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| No | 1 (5.6%) | 1 (4.0%) | 27 (47.4%) | ||
| Personal history allergy | |||||
| Yes | 16 (88.9%) | 19 (76.0%) | 30 (52.6%) | 0.006 | 0.047 |
| No | 2 (11.1%) | 6 (24.0%) | 27 (47.4%) | ||
| Domestic animal allergy | |||||
| Yes | 4 (22.2%) | 6 (24.0%) | 2 (3.5%) | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| No | 14 (77.8%) | 19 (76.0%) | 55 (96.5%) | ||
| Previous occupational allergy | |||||
| Yes | 3 (16.7%) | 5 (20.0%) | 1 (1.8%) | 0.014 | 0.003 |
| No | 15 (83.3%) | 20 (80.0%) | 56 (98.2%) | ||
| Allergy to mouse and rat | |||||
| Yes | 3 (16.7%) | 5 (20.0%) | 0 (0%) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| No | 15 (83.38%) | 20 (80.0%) | 57 (100.0%) | ||
| Actual occupational allergy | |||||
| Yes | 17 (40.5%) | 25 (59.5%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| No | 1 (1.7%) | 0 (0.0%) | 57 (98.3%) | ||
| Occupational exposure (year) | |||||
| 0–3 | 6 (15.8%) | 9 (23.7%) | 23 (60.5%) | 0.291 | 0.550 |
| 4–7 | 4 (21.1%) | 3 (15.8%) | 12 (63.2%) | ||
| 8–11 | 3 (18.8%) | 6 (37.5%) | 7 (43.8%) | ||
| 12–15 | 0 (0.0%) | 5 (38.5%) | 8 (61.5%) | ||
| 16+ | 5 (35.7%) | 2 (14.3%) | 7 (50.0%) | ||
| Nose/eyes symptom working with animals | |||||
| Yes | 17 (94.4%) | 23 (92.0%) | 0 (0%) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| No | 1 (5.6%) | 2 (8.0%) | 57 (100.0%) | ||
| Asthma/chest tightness working with animals | |||||
| Yes | 10 (55.6%) | 5 (20.0%) | 0 (0%) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| No | 8 (44.4%) | 20 (80.0%) | 57 (100.0%) | ||
| Skin symptoms working with animals | |||||
| Yes | 4 (22.2%) | 9 (36.0%) | 0 (0%) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| No | 14 (77.8%) | 16 (64.0%) | 57 (100.0%) | ||
| Time of onset of allergic symptoms | |||||
| < 10 minutes | 3 (16.7%) | 9 (36.0%) | 57 (100.0%) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| > 10 minutes | 15 (83.3%) | 16 (64.0%) | 0 (0%) | ||
| Positive to animals but not mouse or rat | |||||
| Yes | 10 (55.6%) | 3 (12.0%) | 5 (8.8%) | 0.000 | 0.650 |
| No | 8 (44.4%) | 22 (88.0%) | 52 (91.2%) | ||
| Positive indoor | |||||
| Yes | 11 (61.1%) | 7 (28.0%) | 9 (15.8%) | 0.000 | 0.199 |
| No | 7 (38.9%) | 18 (72.0%) | 48 (84.2%) | ||
| Positive outdoor | |||||
| Yes | 15 (83.3%) | 16 (64.0%) | 22 (38.6%) | 0.001 | 0.034 |
| No | 3 (16.7%) | 9 (36.0%) | 35 (61.4%) | ||
| Positive food | |||||
| Yes | 3 (16.7%) | 5 (20.0%) | 6 (10.5%) | 0.485 | 0.247 |
| No | 15 (83.3%) | 20 (80.0%) | 51 (89.5%) | ||
| Positive rat or mouse | |||||
| Yes | 18 (100.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0.000 | - |
| No | 0 (0.0%) | 25 (100.0%) | 57 (100.0%) | ||
| Total | 18 (18.0%) | 25 (25.0%) | 57(57.0%) | ||
1LAWs-LAA positive/sensitized: Positive IgE response with and without allergy symptoms.
2LAWs-LAA symptomatic: Negative IgE response with allergy symptoms.
3LAWs-LAA negative: Negative IgE response without allergy symptoms.
*LAWs with LAA positive/sensitized vs. LAA negative.
#LAWs with LAA symptomatic vs. LAA negative.
Positivity to indoor, outdoor and animal allergens other than mouse and/or rat allergens were significantly related to LAWs-LAA positive/sensitized while actual occupational allergy is significantly related to LAWs-LAA symptomatics.
Prevalence ratios were presented in Table 3 for the studied variables with respect to the control group (LAWs-LAA negative). Factors which are more likely to induce LAA positivity/sensitized were the presence of previous allergy in life and working environment, specifically: Domestic animal allergy (PRs = 3.286; 95% CI = 1.577–6.846), previous occupational allergy (PRs = 3.550; 95% CI = 1.724–7.312), allergy to mouse and/or rat (PRs = 4.800; 95% CI = 3.060–7.530), allergic symptoms working with animals (asthma/chest tightness PRs = 8.125; 95% CI = 4.246–15.547; skin PRs = 5.071; 95% CI = 3.172–8.109), positivity to animals but not mouse or rat (PRs = 5.000; 95% CI = 2.391–10.456), indoor (PRs = 4.321; 95% CI = 1.947–9.594), outdoor (PRs = 5.135; 95% CI = 1.620–16.282).
Table 3. Prevalence ratios (PRs) of LAWs-LAA positive/sensitized and LAWs-LAA symptomatic compared to LAWs-LAA negative.
| Variable | LAWs-LAA positive/sensitized1 | LAWs-LAA symptomatic2 | ||
| PRs | 95% CI | PRs | 95% CI | |
| Experienced allergy symptoms | 10.128 | 1.424–72.026 | 12.444 | 1.775–87.259 |
| Personal history allergy | 5.043 | 1.250–20.342 | 2.133 | 0.954–4.769 |
| Domestic animal allergy | 3.286 | 1.577–6.846 | 2.921 | 1.673–5.099 |
| Previous occupational allergy | 3.550 | 1.724–7.312 | 3.167 | 1.884–5.322 |
| Allergy to mouse and rat | 4.800 | 3.060–7.530 | 3.850 | 2.641–5.613 |
| Asthma/chest tightness working with animals | 8.125 | 4.246–15.547 | 3.850 | 2.641–5.613 |
| Skin symptoms working with animals | 5.071 | 3.172–8.109 | 4.563 | 2.959–7.035 |
| Positive to animals but not mouse or rat | 5.000 | 2.391–10.456 | 1.261 | 0.483–3.297 |
| Positive indoor | 4.321 | 1.947–9.594 | 1.604 | 0.812–3.170 |
| Positive outdoor | 5.135 | 1.620–16.282 | 2.058 | 1.031–4.111 |
| Receiving animals | 1.675 | 0.616–4.551 | 2.038 | 1.051–3.954 |
| Reproduction room | 0.682 | 0.224–2.082 | 1.988 | 1.057–3.740 |
| Receiving animal room | 1.300 | 0.457–3.699 | 1.676 | 0.832–3.378 |
| Feeding or administering substances | 1.063 | 0.453–2.490 | 2.227 | 1.143–4.341 |
1LAWs-LAA positive/sensitized: Positive IgE response with and without allergy symptoms.
2LAWs-LAA symptomatic: Negative IgE response with allergy symptoms.
Concerning the type of activity carried out with animals, receiving animals or working into the reproduction room or feeding or administering substances are more likely to be a LAWs-LAA symptomatic than LAWs-LAA negative (PRs = 2.038; 95% CI = 1.051–3.954; PRs = 1.988; 95% CI = 1.057–3.740; PRs = 2.227; 95% CI = 1.143–4.341).
4. Discussion
Our study evaluated, for the first time, the risk of exposure to animal laboratory allergens in animal facilities with a proteomic-based allergy evaluation through a multidisciplinary approach addressed to identify: Immunological profile of LAWs; LAWs-LAA positive; role of several risk factors in workplace and in life environment.
We also underline the important role of molecular-based allergy in allergic sensitization to furry animals as reported in not-occupational diagnostics [37],[38]. For this reason, we propose to use proteomics in the study of occupational allergies and for LAA in particular [7],[39] to overcome the great variability of LAA prevalence (between 4% and 44%) due to different methodologies and control and preventive measures applied [11],[14]–[16]. In fact, different numbers result on the basis of the definition adopted: Considering IgE positivity response 18% of workers can be defined as LAA, considering answers derived from questionnaire this percentage amounts to 42%, if we consider the combination of IgE positivity response and allergy symptoms the estimate of LAA is 17%. In any case our results appear to be aligned with the literature showing a great variable percentage comprised between 4% and 44% [10]–[16].
Our study was performed with protein microarray and it shows a percentage of 18% of LAWs serum positive to Mus m 1, Mus m 4, Rat n 4 animal allergens which falls within the percentage estimated in literature [10]–[16]; 17 LAWs manifest allergic symptoms whereas only one was asymptomatic, underlying that the role of serological IgE positivity in clinical outcomes. Moreover, our results showed that the occupational exposure is related to manifestation of clinical symptoms in 40% of LAWs with multiple IgE positivity to allergens of mouse and/or rat and 60% with IgE symptomatic.
The study confirmed the onset of symptoms occur in the first three years of work. As reported in the results, 40% of workers (of which 17% had a positive IgE response to mouse and/or rat) referred sneezing, runny and stuffy nose, red and itchy eyes, 15% (of which 10% had a positive IgE response to mouse and/or rat) reported coughing, asthma and wheeze and 13% (of which 4% had a positive IgE response to mouse and/or rat) referred rash and hives.
We retain that using protein microarray is a great opportunity to identify not only susceptibility to occupational allergens (mouse and/or rat Mus m 1, Mus m 4, Rat n 4 animal allergens) but also to evaluate susceptibility to aeroallergens of animal and vegetable, food allergens, and other.
Prevalence of reported symptoms are similar to what is reported in literature, that is a higher percentage for nose and eyes symptoms followed by chest tightness (including asthma) and skin symptoms [10]–[16],[32]. Positivity to indoor, outdoor and animal different from mouse/rat allergens were significantly related to LAWs-LAA positive/sensitized. Risk factors found out in the study are the presence of experienced allergy symptoms (such as asthma and skin symptoms) both in the domestic environment and in the occupational workplace. LAWs-LAA symptomatic have a higher risk than LAWs-LAA positive/sensitized to develop the disease for those working closely with animals (receiving animals, working into the reproduction room, feeding of administering substances, as reported in Table 3). Most reported symptoms were nose and eyes symptoms for 40% workers where 15% reported chest tightness and 13% skin symptoms. Concerning the type of activity carried out with animals, receiving animals or working into the reproduction room or feeding of administering substances are more likely to be a LAWs-LAA symptomatic than LAWs-LAA negative.
The proteomic array for the study of LAA is an innovative approach in the study of environmental and occupational exposure to allergens [7],[39]–[41] and our results strongly suggested the need to further investigate and develop new and increasingly complementary strategies for the management of occupational risk of allergy. It should also be underlined that animal facilities are peculiar environment workplaces characterized by the simultaneous presence of animals (mainly mouse and rat but also rabbit and other species) and humans (women and men) that are altogether exposed to common biological agents and allergens potentially carried by animals to humans and vice versa.
5. Conclusion
Allergy in the workplace and in animal facilities is a topic extremely timely and necessary to delve into various aspects, risk factors, specific tasks, environmental research and individual sensitization [16],[42],[43].
For this purpose and based on Acts 81/2008 and 26/2014, it is necessary to provide adequate information and communication, through scientific publication, training courses, conferences and other forms of dissemination of the culture of risk prevention [44]–[50] since allergic respiratory diseases are still investigated among workers [51] to deepen the role of co-factors [52].
In this study we obtained a percentage of 18% of LAWs serum positive to rodent allergens; between them 17 LAWs manifest allergic symptoms whereas only one was asymptomatic; the occupational exposure is related to manifestation of clinical symptoms in 40% of LAWs with multiple IgE positivity to allergens of mouse and/or rat and 60% with IgE symptomatic. Our studies are currently in progress and will address the evaluation of the relationship between the sources of environmental air indoor allergens in animal facilities and the susceptibility and immunological profiles of LAWs considering the personal monitoring and the identification of different level risk areas [53],[54] also because a better understanding of the relationship between exposures and outcome is urgently needed [42].
The interest towards LAA is currently still present [55],[56] and all prevention actors must encourage an integrated and multidisciplinary approach for the evaluation and management of the laboratory animal allergy.
The scope of the study is to propose a reference methodology to evaluate the IgE response to specific animal allergens. The proposed protein microarray approach has the advantage to provide an immunological profile not only for specific occupational allergens but also for a wide variety of environmental and food-borne allergens. A special attention should be paid to sensitized and symptomatic LAWs who may display clinical symptoms and/or the immunological response due to occupational exposure. For these workers more compelling preventive and protective measures as well as a proper health surveillance have to be implemented.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Dr. Maria Wirz for critical reading of the manuscript and all those who participated to this study—researchers, technicians and veterinaries.
Footnotes
Conflict of interest: All authors declare no conflicts of interest in this paper.
References
- 1.Gautrin D, Newman-Taylor AJ, Nordman H, et al. Controversies in epidemiology of occupational asthma. Eur Respir J. 2003;22:551–559. doi: 10.1183/09031936.03.00047803. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Bush RK. Assessment and treatment of laboratory animal allergy. ILAR J. 2001;42:55–64. doi: 10.1093/ilar.42.1.55. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Vandenplas O, Worm M, Cullinan P, et al. Occupational allergy. In: Pawankar R, Canonica GW, Holgate ST, et al., editors. White Book on Allergy: Update 2013. World Allergy Organization (WAO); 2013. pp. 72–77. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Patel O, Syamlal G, Wood J, et al. Asthma mortality among persons aged 15–64 years, by industry and occupation—United States, 1999–2016. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2018;67:60–65. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6702a2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Preventing asthma in animal handlers. Atlanta (GA): Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 1998. pp. 97–116. [Google Scholar]
- 6.Bush R. Mechanism and epidemiology of laboratory animal allergy. ILAR J. 2001;42:4–11. doi: 10.1093/ilar.42.1.4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.D'Ovidio MC, Martini A, Melis P, et al. Value of the microarray for the study of laboratory animal allergy (LAA) G Ital Med Lav Ergon. 2011;33:109–116. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Bhabha FK, Nixon R. Occupational exposure to laboratory animals causing a severe exacerbation of atopic eczema. Australas J Dermatol. 2012;53:155–156. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-0960.2011.00754.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Bush R, Wood R, Eggleston P. Laboratory animal allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1998;102:99–112. doi: 10.1016/s0091-6749(98)70060-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Acton D, Mccauley L. Laboratory animal allergy: An occupational hazard. AAOHN J. 2007;55:241–244. doi: 10.1177/216507990705500604. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Seward JP. Occupational allergy to animals. Occup Med. 1999;14:285–302. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Gordon S. Laboratory animal allergy: A British perspective on a global problem. ILAR J. 2001;42:37–46. doi: 10.1093/ilar.42.1.37. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Gordon S, Preece R. Prevention of laboratory animal allergy. Occup Med. 2003;53:371–377. doi: 10.1093/occmed/kqg117. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Elliott L, Heederik D, Marshall S, et al. Incidence of allergy and allergy symptoms among workers exposed to laboratory animals. Occup Environ Med. 2005;62:766–771. doi: 10.1136/oem.2004.018739. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Muzembo BA, Eitoku M, Inaoka Y, et al. Prevalence of occupational allergy in medical researchers exposed to laboratory animals. Ind Health. 2014;52:256–261. doi: 10.2486/indhealth.2012-0155. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Jones M. Laboratory animal allergy in the modern era. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2015;15:73. doi: 10.1007/s11882-015-0575-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Cullinan P, Lowson D, Nieuwenhuijsen MJ, et al. Work related symptoms, sensitization and estimated exposure in workers not previously exposed to laboratory rats. Occup Environ Med. 1994;51:589–592. doi: 10.1136/oem.51.9.589. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Draper A, Newman TA, Cullinan P. Estimating the incidence of occupational asthma and rhinitis from laboratory animal allergens in the UK, 1999–2000. Occup Environ Med. 2003;60:604–605. doi: 10.1136/oem.60.8.604. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Nieuwenhuijsen MJ, Putcha V, Gordon S, et al. Exposure-response relations among laboratory animal workers exposed to rats. Occup Environ Med. 2003;60:104–108. doi: 10.1136/oem.60.2.104. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Gordon S, Newman-Taylor AJ. Animal, insect and shellfish allergy. In: Bernstein IL, Chan-Yeung M, Malo JL, et al., editors. Asthma in the workplace. 2 Eds. New York: Marcel Dekker Inc; 1999. pp. 399–424. [Google Scholar]
- 21.Harrison DJ. Controlling exposure to laboratory animal allergens. ILAR J. 2001;42:17–35. doi: 10.1093/ilar.42.1.17. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.European Union: European Commission, Commission Staff Working Document: Accompanying document to the Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. Seventh Report on the Statistics on the Number of Animals used for Experimental and other Scientific Purposes in the Member States of the European Union. [[accessed 8 March 2018]]. 5 December 2013, COM (2013) 859 final, Available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52013DC0859.
- 23.Longbottom JL, Price JA. Allergy to laboratory animals: Characterization and source of two major mouse allergens, Ag 1 and Ag 3. Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 1987;82:450–452. doi: 10.1159/000234251. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Baker J, Berry A, Boscato LM, et al. Identification of some rabbit allergens as lipocalins. Clin Exp Allergy. 2001;31:303–312. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2222.2001.00973.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Wood RA. Laboratory animal allergens. ILAR J. 2001;42:12–16. doi: 10.1093/ilar.42.1.12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Flower DR. The lipocalin protein family: Structure and function. Biochem J. 1996;318:1–14. doi: 10.1042/bj3180001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Mäntyjärvi R, Rautiainen J, Virtanen T. Lipocalins as allergens. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2000;1482:308–317. doi: 10.1016/s0167-4838(00)00139-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Aalberse RC. Mammalian airborne allergens. Chem Immunol Allergy. 2014;100:243–247. doi: 10.1159/000358862. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Hunskaari S, Fosse RT. Allergy to laboratory mice and rats: A review of the pathophysiology, epidemiology and clinical aspects. Lab Anim. 1990;24:358–374. doi: 10.1258/002367790780865877. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Siraganian R, Sandberg A. Characterization of mouse allergens. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1979;63:435–442. doi: 10.1016/0091-6749(79)90219-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Mari A, Ciardiello MA, Tamburrini M, et al. Proteomic analysis in the identification of allergenic molecules. Expert Rev Proteomics. 2010;7:723–734. doi: 10.1586/epr.10.44. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Bush RK, Stave GM. Laboratory animal allergy: An update. ILAR J. 2003;44:28–51. doi: 10.1093/ilar.44.1.28. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Delclos GL, Arif AA, Aday L, et al. Validation of an asthma questionnaire for use in healthcare workers. Occup Environ Med. 2006;63:173–179. doi: 10.1136/oem.2005.021634. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Scala E, Alessandri C, Bernardi ML, et al. Cross-sectional survey on immunoglobulin E reactivity in 23,077 subjects using an allergenic molecule-based microarray detection system. Clin Exp Allergy. 2010;40:911–921. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2222.2010.03470.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Mari A, Rasi C, Palazzo P, et al. Allergen databases: Current status and perspectives. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2009;9:376–383. doi: 10.1007/s11882-009-0055-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Bernardi ML, Giangrieco I, Camardella L, et al. Allergenic lipid transfer proteins from plant-derived foods do not immunologically and clinically behave homogeneously: The kiwifruit LTP as a model. PLoS One. 2011;6:e27856. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0027856. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Liccardi G, Bilò MB, Manzi F, et al. What could be the role of molecular-based allergy diagnostics in detecting the risk of developing allergic sensitization to furry animals? Eur Ann Allergy Clin Immunol. 2015;47:163–167. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Liccardi G, Meriggi A, Russo M, et al. The risk of sensitization to furry animals in patients already sensitized to cat/dog: An in vitro evaluation using molecular-based allergy diagnostics. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2015;135:1664–1666. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2015.03.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.D'Ovidio MC, Martini A, Signorini S. New tools for the study of occupational allergies related to animals. G Ital Med Lav Ergon. 2007;29:489–491. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Olivieri M, Biscardo CA, Palazzo P, et al. Wheat IgE profiling and wheat IgE levels in bakers with allergic occupational phenotypes. Occup Environ Med. 2013;70:617–622. doi: 10.1136/oemed-2012-101112. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.van der WA, Lopata AL, Nieuwenhuizen NE, et al. Work-related allergy and asthma in spice mill workers—The impact of processing dried spices on IgE reactivity patterns. Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 2010;152:271–278. doi: 10.1159/000283038. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Feary J, Cullinan P. Laboratory animal allergy: A new world. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol. 2016;16:107–112. doi: 10.1097/ACI.0000000000000256. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Simoneti CS, Freitas AS, Barbosa MC, et al. Study of risk factors for atopic sensitization, asthma, and bronchial hyperresponsiveness in animal laboratory workers. J Occup Health. 2016;58:7–15. doi: 10.1539/joh.15-0045-OA. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Kampitak T, Betschel SD. Anaphylaxis in laboratory workers because of rodent handling: Two case reports. J Occup Health. 2016;58:381–383. doi: 10.1539/joh.16-0053-CS. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Italian Legislative Decree no. 81/2008. Implementation of the article 1 of the law 3 august 2007, no. 123 concerning the protection of health and safety in the workplaces. Ordinary Supplement no.108 of the Official Journal no. 101 of 30 April 2008. Available from: www.gazzettaufficiale.it/index.jsp.
- 46.Italian Legislative Decree no. 106/2009. Supplementary and corrective provisions of the legislative decree 9 april 2008, no. 81, concerning the protection of health and safety in the workplaces. Ordinary Supplement no. 142 of the Official Journal no. 180 of 05 August 2009. Available from: www.gazzettaufficiale.it/index.jsp.
- 47.Legislative Decree 4 march 2014, n. 26. Implementation of the Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes (Official Journal no. 61 of 14 March 2014) Available from: www.gazzettaufficiale.it/index.jsp.
- 48.NRC—National Research Council. Occupational health and safety in the care and use of research animals. Vol. 1969. Washington DC: National Academy Press; 1997. pp. 51–64. [Google Scholar]
- 49.D'Ovidio MC, Wirz A, Grandi C, et al. Education and training in animal care: A workplace scenario to combine human health and animal health. Poster Section presented at: International Congress on Occupational Health. 31st ICOH; 2015 May 31–June 5; Seoul Korea
- 50.Stave GM. Occupational animal allergy. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2018;18:11. doi: 10.1007/s11882-018-0755-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Schelkle M, Braun J, Jörres R, et al. Respiratory allergies among veterinarians: Two cross-sectional surveys from 2006 to 2012. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2017;90:639–643. doi: 10.1007/s00420-017-1226-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Lemaire M, Oppliger A, Hotz P, et al. Can serum cytokine profile discriminate irritant-induced and allergen-induced symptoms? A cross-sectional study in workers mostly exposed to laboratory animals. Occup Environ Med. 2017;74:592–600. doi: 10.1136/oemed-2016-104137. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Wirz A, D'Ovidio MC, Massari S, et al. Methodological approach for the study of LAA (Laboratory Animal Allergy): A proposal to harmonize the procedures of risk evaluation. XXII AISAL Symposium. Innovation in laboratory animals science. The future is now. 22nd–24th October 2015 Naples, Italy. Comp Med. 2016;66:78. [Google Scholar]
- 54.Westall L, Graham IR, Bussell J. A risk-based approach to reducing exposure of staff to laboratory animal allergens. Lab Anim. 2015;44:32–38. doi: 10.1038/laban.603. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55.Mason HJ, Willerton L. Airborne exposure to laboratory animal allergens. AIMS Allergy Immunol. 2017;1:78–88. [Google Scholar]
- 56.Simoneti CS, Ferraz E, Menezes MBD, et al. Allergic sensitization to laboratory animals is more associated with asthma, rhinitis, and skin symptoms than sensitization to common allergens. Clin Exp Allergy. 2017;47:1436–1444. doi: 10.1111/cea.12994. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]