, Volume 35, Issue 1, pp 195–200 | Cite as

Comparison of extraction methods for Poaceae pollen allergens

  • Iris Aloisi
  • Stefano Del DucaEmail author
  • Paola De Nuntiis
  • Paolo Mandrioli
  • Delia Fernández-González
Brief Communication


While pollen sampling has been standardised in the last decades, allergen extraction from aerobiological samples still needs standardisation. With the aim to identify the most practical, efficient and reproducible method, in this study, protein extraction protocols from Poaceae pollen, i.e. Lolium perenne, Phleum pratense and Dactylis glomerata, were evaluated. Three extraction protocols were selected and compared in terms of protein yield and allergen extraction. The methods were based on the use of: (1) lysis buffer; (2) pollen hydration in PBS buffer followed by sonication; and (3) pollen hydration in PBS buffer. After extraction, protein concentration was measured. Results indicated that the different extraction protocols could extract significantly different protein amounts, being the lysis buffer-based protocol the most efficient in terms of total protein extraction. However, when allergen extraction was compared, no significant differences were detectable among the different protocols. Results afforded the selection of a suitable extraction protocol for Poaceae pollen allergens. In particular, results suggested a PBS extraction followed by sonication; as it allowed the highest allergen extraction, it might be the most reproducible protocol minimising any possible interference with proteomics and immunological studies when compared to lysis buffer method.


Comparison of extraction protocol Poaceae pollen Poaceae allergens Protein yield 



We are very thankful to Juan Asturias for providing pollen samples and primary antibodies. This study was partially supported by AERORAIN project (Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, Grant CGL2014-52556-R, co-financed with FEDER funds).


  1. Aloisi, I., Del Duca, S., De Nuntiis, P., Vega Maray, A. M., Mandrioli, P., Gutiérrez, P., et al. (2018). Behavior of profilins in the atmosphere and in vitro, and their relationship with the performance of airborne pollen. Atmospheric Environment, 178, 231–241. Scholar
  2. De Linares, C., Diaz de la Guardia, C., Nieto Lugilde, D., & Alba, F. (2010). Airborne study of grass allergen (Lol p 1) in different-sized particles. International Archives of Allergy and Immunology, 152(1), 49–57. Scholar
  3. Fernández-González, D., Rodriguez Rajo, F., González Parrado, Z., Valencia Barrera, R. M., Jato, V., & Grau Moreno, S. (2011). Differences in atmospheric emissions of Poaceae pollen and Lol p 1 allergen. Aerobiologia, 27, 301–309. Scholar
  4. Galan, C., Smith, M., Thibaudon, M., Frenguelli, G., Oteros, J., Gehrig, R., et al. (2014). Pollen monitoring: Minimum requirements and reproducibility of analysis. Aerobiologia, 30(4), 385–395. Scholar
  5. Grewling, L., Bogawski, P., Jenerowicz, D., Czarnecka-Operacz, M., Sikoparija, B., Skjoth, C. A., et al. (2016). Mesoscale atmospheric transport of ragweed pollen allergens from infected to uninfected areas. International Journal of Biometeorology, 60(10), 1493–1500. Scholar
  6. Jung, S., Estrella, N., Pfaffl, M. W., Hartmann, S., Handelshauser, E., & Menzel, A. (2018). Grass pollen production and group V allergen content of agriculturally relevant species and cultivars. PLoS ONE, 13(3), e0193958. Scholar
  7. Moreno-Grau, S., Elvira-Rendueles, B., Moreno, J., Garcia-Sanchez, A., Vergara, N., Asturias, J. A., et al. (2006). Correlation between Olea europaea and Parietaria judaica pollen counts and quantification of their major allergens Ole e 1 and Par j 1-Par j 2. Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology, 96(6), 858–864. Scholar
  8. Morris, D. R. P., Fatisson, J., Olsson, A. L. J., Tufenkji, N., & Ferro, A. R. (2014). Real-time monitoring of airborne cat allergen using a QCM-based immunosensor. Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical, 190, 851–857. Scholar
  9. Plaza, M. P., Alcázar, P., Hernández-Ceballos, M. A., & Galán, C. (2016). Mismatch in aeroallergens and airborne grass pollen concentrations. Atmospheric Environment, 144, 361–369. Scholar
  10. Renstrom, A. (2002). Exposure to airborne allergens: A review of sampling methods. Journal of Environmental Monitoring, 4(5), 619–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Santos, A., & Van Ree, R. (2011). Profilins: mimickers of allergy or relevant allergens? International Archives of Allergy and Immunology, 155(3), 191–204. Scholar
  12. Schappi, G. F., Taylor, P. E., Pain, M. C., Cameron, P. A., Dent, A. W., Staff, I. A., et al. (2001). Concentrations of major grass group 5 allergens in pollen grains and atmospheric particles: Implications for hay fever and allergic asthma sufferers sensitized to grass pollen allergens. Clinical and Experimental Allergy, 29(5), 633–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Suphioglu, C., Singh, M. B., Taylor, P., Bellomo, R., Holmes, P., Puy, R., et al. (1992). Mechanism of grass-pollen-induced asthma. Lancet, 339(8793), 569–572. Scholar
  14. Takahashi, Y., Ohashi, T., Nagoya, T., Sakaguchi, M., Yasueda, H., & Nitta, H. (2001). Possibility of real-time measurement of an airborne Criptomeria japonica pollen allergen based on the principle of surface plasmon resonance. Aerobiologia, 17, 313–318. Scholar
  15. Weber, R. W. (2007). Patterns of pollen cross-reactivity of pollen allergens: impact on allergen immunotherapy. Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology, 99, 203–211. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biological, Geological and Environmental SciencesUniversity of BolognaBolognaItaly
  2. 2.Institute of Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, ISAC-CNRBolognaItaly
  3. 3.Department of Biodiversity and Environmental ManagementUniversity of LeónLeónSpain

Personalised recommendations