Publication Cover
GM Crops & Food
Biotechnology in Agriculture and the Food Chain
Volume 13, 2022 - Issue 1
2,005
Views
1
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Article Commentary

Slow alignment of GMO allergenicity regulations with science on protein digestibility

ORCID Icon, &
Pages 126-130 | Received 28 Mar 2022, Accepted 15 Jun 2022, Published online: 28 Jun 2022

ABSTRACT

The current science on food allergy supports the dual allergen exposure hypothesis where sensitization to allergenic proteins is favored by dermal and inhalation exposure, and tolerization against allergy is favored by exposure in the gut. This hypothesis is bolstered by the epidemiological evidence showing that regions where children are exposed early in life to allergenic foods have lower rates of allergy. This led medical experts to replace the previous recommendation to exclude commonly allergenic foods from the diets of young children with the current recommendation that such foods be introduced to children early in life. Past beliefs that lowering gut exposure would reduce the likelihood that a protein would be allergenic led regulators and risk assessors to consider digestively stable proteins to be of greater allergenic risk. This resulted in international guidance and government regulations for newly expressed proteins in genetically engineered crops that aligned with this belief. Despite empirical results showing that allergens are no more digestively stable than non-allergens, and that gut exposure favors tolerization over sensitization, regulations have not come into alignment with the current science prompting developers to continue to engineer proteins for increased digestibility. In some rare cases, this could potentially increase sensitization risk.

Pediatric Recommendations on Exposure to Foods

The frequency of food allergy has increased in recent years.Citation1 Children are especially vulnerable to food allergy, some of which is transitory and some of which may persist lifelong.Citation2,Citation3 Medical experts previously recommended exclusion of commonly allergenic foods from young children to prevent sensitization to the allergenic proteins that they contain. Recently, it was found that in regions where commonly allergenic foods were introduced to children early in life, fewer individuals developed allergies to these same foods. Apparently, early introduction of commonly allergenic foods favors tolerization against allergy rather than sensitization. This led to the modern recommendation by medical experts to expose children to common allergenic foods early in life.Citation4 It is now thought that sensitization to food allergens may actually occur primarily due to dermal and/or inhalation exposure to food dust, whereas exposure to these same allergens in the gut favors tolerization against allergy (dual allergen exposure hypothesis).Citation5,Citation6

Current Regulatory Allergenicity Guidance for Genetically Engineered Crops

In a related area of science, it was previously thought that allergenic proteins were more resistant to gastrointestinal digestive enzymes compared with non-allergenic proteins due to predicted increased exposure in the gut.Citation7,Citation8 It followed that international regulatory guidance and regional regulations for genetically engineered crops treated digestion-resistant newly expressed proteins as an allergenic risk.Citation9–13 As an example, the digestively stable insecticidal Cry9c protein variant (modified to be stable)Citation14 expressed in genetically engineered StarLink™ maize was not approved for food use by the US Environmental Protection agency (EPA) due to a perceived allergenic risk even though it was sourced from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), a bacterium widely distributed in the environment and widely used as a microbial insecticide without reports of allergy, and that the Cry9c protein shows low amino acid homology to known allergens.Citation15 Such regulations and examples prompted developers of genetically engineered crops to select proteins that were rapidly digested under simulated gastrointestinal conditions for expression by transgenes and/or to engineer newly expressed proteins to be more digestible.Citation16

However, it is now apparent that no correlation exists between the digestive stability of proteins and their allergic status.Citation17–19 In fact, one study using a mouse model found that engineering a known digestively stable allergen to be more digestible prevented tolerization against that protein resulting in sensitization.Citation20 Similar to the aforementioned situation for allergenic food exposure in children, digestive stability likely increases gut exposure favoring tolerization against allergy. This realization has caused several research groups to suggest that digestive stability should no longer be considered a risk factor when conducting an allergenicity assessment for newly expressed proteins in genetically engineered crops.Citation21–23

However, unlike the updated guidance by medical experts to expose young children to allergenic foods early in life, regulatory guidance for the safety assessment of newly expressed proteins in genetically engineered crops has not been updated to align with the current understanding that digestively stable proteins are not at greater risk for becoming allergens. Currently, digestively stable newly expressed proteins in genetically engineered crops are widely perceived and regulated as an allergenic risk. For example, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) recently held a workshop, in part to reconsider the value of digestion in the weight-of-evidence assessment of the allergenicity of novel food proteins.Citation24 After the workshop, EFSA acknowledged that the evidence for digestive stability as a direct predictor of allergenic risk for food proteins is weak and that it is critical to consider the feasibility and practicality of inclusion of this parameter in the weight-of-evidence assessment; nevertheless, EFSA inexplicably continued to endorse the validity of including digestibility in the weight-of-evidence assessment of allergenicity.Citation25 Consequently, developers continue to be motivated to engineer digestively unstable proteins for expression in genetically engineered crops, potentially increasing the risk of sensitization.

Elicitation Risk

Some accurately point out that reducing exposure in the gut via digestion should reduce the elicitation risk in individuals already sensitized to a food allergen (or cross-reactive proteins).Citation19 However, bioinformatic screening of all candidate newly expressed protein amino-acid sequences for similarity to known allergens is a very reliable indicator of the cross-reactive risk within those already sensitized to known allergens because very few truly novel allergens are discovered each year (high sequence homology within groups of cross-reactive allergens).Citation25–28 Additionally, the few new unique sequences are likely of minor clinical importance (low frequency of occurrence and not resulting in severe reactions) since they are primarily added to the database because they react with IgE antibodies, which is an often required attribute, but not sufficient in itself to indicate clinical relevance.Citation29 When a sequence is found to exceed the highly conservative amino acid thresholds for similarity to a known allergen, targeted IgE serum screening is typically conducted.Citation30 The use of powerful bioinformatic tools, a comprehensive allergen database (https://comparedatabase.org/), and a knowledge of the allergenic status of the organism from which the protein was sourced, in combination with targeted IgE serum screening, has resulted in no documented cases of allergenicity to any newly expressed protein in any commercialized genetically engineered crop.Citation31 Independent of the digestive stability of the candidate protein, these screening results are used to assess the potential elicitation risk for the protein. Thus, digestive stability is not used in any practical scenario as a differentiator for the acceptability of the elicitation risk for a newly expressed protein in a genetically engineered crop.Citation32,Citation33 Notwithstanding, digestion information for known allergens can help researchers understand the steps potentially involved in clinical allergy, but this does not translate to understanding the allergenic potential of proteins with unknown allergenicity such as those newly expressed in genetically engineered crops.Citation34,Citation35

Slow Regulatory Alignment with Current Science

Government regulations are often slow to align with scientific advances due to the bureaucratic processes typically involved in updating official regulations and guidance. This is exacerbated when official international guidance is the basis for regional regulation. However, precedent for deviating from international guidance has occurred. For example, EFSA ceased requiring that contiguous short-amino-acid exact matches with known allergens for newly expressed proteins in genetically engineered crops be used as a bioinformatic threshold to indicate cross-reactive allergenic risk when the science indicated that such matches were not useful in this endeavor.Citation10,Citation36–38 Furthermore, resistance to change can sometimes create additional barriers to alignment of regulation with the most current science, especially when some perceive removing a regulatory hurdle, even when not protective for risk, as a weakening of regulation. This slow response is also a partial consequence of prescriptive regulations that are ill suited to adaptation or interpretation by regulators when the science advances, thus requiring an official regulation update to obtain scientific alignment for the risk assessment. Finally, some argue that a digestion assay may eventually be developed that is more physiologically relevant, and that results from such a future assay may better correlate with the allergenic potential of different proteins.Citation11 However, predicating the inclusion of digestibility results generated using current assays in regulations, based on the premise that an assay developed in the future may be predictive of allergenic risk, seems both unwarranted and inconsistent with the dual allergen exposure hypothesis where gut exposure favors tolerization against allergy. Together, these factors have thus far prevented our knowledge that digestibility does not correlate with the allergenic status of proteins and does not predict the allergenic risk for newly expressed proteins in genetically engineered crops from enabling regulatory alignment with the current science.

Recommendations

Under current prescriptive regulations for genetically engineered crops, it is important for regulatory bodies to prioritize the updating of regulations to align with the current science. In this case, digestive stability should be removed as a risk factor within the weight-of evidence allergenicity assessment of newly expressed proteins in genetically engineered crops since it carries no weight scientifically (and could, in rare cases, result in increased sensitization risk). It is also important for authors of regulation to anticipate scientific progress such that regulations are not so prescriptive as to impede safety assessors from aligning with the current scientific understanding before regulations can be formally updated. The principle of science-based risk assessment should continue to be the foundation of regulation.

Disclosure statement

The authors are employed by Corteva Agriscience which develops and markets transgenic seed.

Additional information

Funding

No specific funding was provided. Investigation and preparation of the manuscript was done as part of employment by Corteva Agriscience.

References

  • Loh W, Tang ML. The epidemiology of food allergy in the global context. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(9):2043. doi:10.3390/ijerph15092043.
  • Prescott SL, Pawankar R, Allen KJ, Campbell DE, Sinn JK, Fiocchi A, Ebisawa M, Sampson HA, Beyer K, Lee B-W, et al. A global survey of changing patterns of food allergy burden in children. World Allergy Organ J. 2013;6:1–12. doi:10.1186/1939-4551-6-21.
  • MH-K H, Wong WH-S, Chang C. Clinical spectrum of food allergies: a comprehensive review. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol. 2014;46(3):225–40. doi:10.1007/s12016-012-8339-6.
  • Yakaboski E, Robinson LB, Chen Arroyo A, Espinola JA, Geller RJ, Sullivan AF, Rudders S, Camargo C. Early introduction of food allergens and risk of developing food allergy. Nutrients. 2021;13(7):2318. doi:10.3390/nu13072318.
  • Kulis MD, Smeekens JM, Immormino RM, Moran TP. The airway as a route of sensitization to peanut: an update to the dual allergen exposure hypothesis. J Allergy Clin Immuno. 2021;148(3):689–93. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2021.05.035.
  • Brough HA, Nadeau KC, Sindher SB, Alkotob SS, Chan S, Bahnson HT, Leung DYM, Lack G. Epicutaneous sensitization in the development of food allergy: what is the evidence and how can this be prevented? Allergy. 2020;75(9):2185–205. doi:10.1111/all.14304.
  • Astwood JD, Leach JN, Fuchs RL. Stability of food allergens to digestion in vitro. Nat Biotechnol. 1996;14(10):1269–73. doi:10.1038/nbt1096-1269.
  • Kimber I, Kerkvliet NI, Taylor SL, Astwood JD, Sarlo K, Dearman RJ. Toxicology of protein allergenicity: prediction and characterization. Toxicol Sci. 1999;48(2):157–62. doi:10.1093/toxsci/48.2.157.
  • Ladics GS. Current codex guidelines for assessment of potential protein allergenicity. Food Chem Immunol. 2008;46(10):S20–S3. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2008.07.021.
  • FAO/WHO. Evaluation of allergenicity of genetically modified foods. report of Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2001.
  • Naegeli H, Naegeli H, Birch AN, Casacuberta J, De Schrijver MA, Gralak ,MA, Guerche P, Jones H, Manachini B, Messéan A, et al.; EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms. Guidance on allergenicity assessment of genetically modified plants. EFSA J. 2017;15(6):e04862. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2017.4862.
  • Chassy BM. Food safety evaluation of crops produced through biotechnology. J Am Coll Nutr. 2002;21(sup3):166S–73S. doi:10.1080/07315724.2002.10719261.
  • EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms, Naegeli H, Bresson JL, Dalmay T, Dewhurst IC, Epstein MM, et al. Statement on in vitro protein digestibility tests in allergenicity and protein safety assessment of genetically modified plants. EFSA Journal. 2021;19(1):e06350.
  • Lambert B, Buysse L, Decock C, Jansens S, Piens C, Saey B, Seurinck J, Van Audenhove K, Van Rie J, Van Vliet A, et al. A Bacillus thuringiensis insecticidal crystal protein with a high activity against members of the family Noctuidae. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1996;62(1):80–86. doi:10.1128/aem.62.1.80-86.1996.
  • Segarra AE, Rawson JM, Resources S, Division I. StarLink [TM] Corn Controversy: background. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, 2001.
  • Parisi K, Poon S, Renda RF, Sahota G, English J, Yalpani N, Bleackley MR, Anderson MA, van der Weerden NL. Improving the digestibility of plant defensins to meet regulatory requirements for transgene products in crop protection. Front Plant Sci. 2020;11:1227. doi:10.3389/fpls.2020.01227.
  • Fu TJ, Abbott UR, Hatzos C. Digestibility of food allergens and nonallergenic proteins in simulated gastric fluid and simulated intestinal fluid—a comparative study. J Agric Food Chem. 2002;50:7154−7160.
  • Herman RA, Woolhiser MM, Ladics GS, Korjagin VA, Schafer BW, Storer NP, Green SB, Kan L. Stability of a set of allergens and non-allergens in simulated gastric fluid. Int J Food Sci Nutr. 2007;58(2):125–41. doi:10.1080/09637480601149640.
  • Akkerdaas J, Totis M, Barnett B, Bell E, Davis T, Edrington T, Glenn K, Graser G, Herman R, Knulst A. Protease resistance of food proteins: a mixed picture for predicting allergenicity but a useful tool for assessing exposure. Clin Transl Allergy. 2018;8(1):30. doi:10.1186/s13601-018-0216-9.
  • Freidl R, Gstöttner A, Baranyi U, Swoboda I, Stolz F, Focke-Tejkl M, Wekerle T, van Ree R, Valenta R, Linhart B, et al. Resistance of parvalbumin to gastrointestinal digestion is required for profound and long‐lasting prophylactic oral tolerance. Allergy. 2020;75(2):326–35. doi:10.1111/all.13994.
  • Bøgh KL, Madsen CB. Food allergens: is there a correlation between stability to digestion and allergenicity? Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2016;56(9):1545–67. doi:10.1080/10408398.2013.779569.
  • Verhoeckx K, Bøgh KL, Dupont D, Egger L, Gadermaier G, Larré C, Mackie A, Menard O, Adel-Patient K, Picariello G, et al. The relevance of a digestibility evaluation in the allergenicity risk assessment of novel proteins. Opinion of a joint initiative of COST action ImpARAS and COST action INFOGEST. Food Chem Immunol. 2019;129:405–23. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2019.04.052.
  • Herman RA, Bauman PA, Goodwin L, Islamovic E, Ma EH, Serrano H, Silvanovich A, Simmons AR, Song P, Tetteh AO, et al. Mass spectrometric analysis of digesta does not improve the allergenicity assessment of GM crops. Transgenic Res. 2021;30(3):283–88. doi:10.1007/s11248-021-00254-x.
  • European Food Safety Authority. Workshop on allergenicity assessment–prediction. EFSA Supporting Publications; 2021, Vol. 18: 6826E. https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.2903/sp.efsa.2021.EN-6826
  • EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms, Mullins E, Bresson J-L, Dalmay T, Dewhurst IC, Epstein MM, et al. Scientific Opinion on development needs for the allergenicity and protein safety assessment of food and feed products derived from biotechnology. EFSA Journal. 2022;20(1):e07044.
  • Herman RA, Song P. Validation of bioinformatic approaches for predicting allergen cross reactivity. Food Chem Immunol. 2019;132:110656. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2019.110656.
  • Kessenich C, Silvanovich A. Challenges of automation and scale: bioinformatics and the evaluation of proteins to support genetically modified product safety assessments. J Invertebr Pathol. 2021;186:107587. doi:10.1016/j.jip.2021.107587.
  • Herman RA, Song P. Comprehensive COMPARE database reduces allergenic risk of novel food proteins. GM Crops and Food 2022;13:112-118. doi:10.1080/21645698.2022.2079180.
  • van Ree R, Sapiter Ballerda D, Berin MC, Beuf L, Chang A, Gadermaier G, van Ree R, Guevera PA, Hoffmann-Sommergruber K, Islamovic E, et al. The COMPARE database: a public resource for allergen identification, adapted for continuous improvement. Front Allergy. 2021;2:700533. doi:10.3389/falgy.2021.700533.
  • Herman RA, Ladics GS. Allergenic sensitization versus elicitation risk criteria for novel food proteins - short communication. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2018;94:283–85. doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2018.02.016.
  • Dunn SE, Vicini JL, Glenn KC, Fleischer DM, Greenhawt MJ. The allergenicity of genetically modified foods from genetically engineered crops: a narrative and systematic review. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2017;119(3):214–22. e3. doi:10.1016/j.anai.2017.07.010.
  • Herman RA, Roper JM, Zhang JX. Evidence runs contrary to digestive stability predicting protein allergenicity. Transgenic Res. 2020;29(1):105–07. doi:10.1007/s11248-019-00182-x.
  • Herman RA, Roper JM. Erroneous belief that digestive stability predicts allergenicity may lead to greater risk for novel food proteins. Front Bioeng Biotech. 2021:9. doi:10.3389/fbioe.2021.747490.
  • Mackie A, Dupont D, Torcello‐Gómez A, Jardin J, Deglaire A. Report on EFSA project OC/EFSA/GMO/2017/01 “In vitro protein digestibility”(Allergestion). EFSA Supporting Publications; Vol. 16, 2019. p. 1765E. https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.2903/sp.efsa.2019.EN-1765
  • Wang R, Houston N, Cheever ML, Geng T, Gillikin N, McDonald J, Serranoc H, Shippare J, Tettehc A, Wanga Y, Liua ZL. Can mass spectrometry analysis of in vitro digestion products improve the assessment of allergenic potential of a newly expressed protein? J Regul Sci. 2021;9:76–83.
  • EFSA. Scientific opinion on the assessment of allergenicity of GM plants and microorganisms and derived food and feed. EFSA J 2010;8:1–168.
  • Silvanovich A, Nemeth MA, Song P, Herman R, Tagliani L, Bannon GA. The value of short amino acid sequence matches for prediction of protein allergenicity. Toxicol Sci. 2006;90(1):252–58. doi:10.1093/toxsci/kfj068.
  • Herman R, Song P, ThirumalaiswamySekhar A. Value of eight-amino-acid matches in predicting the allergenicity status of proteins: an empirical bioinformatic investigation. Clin Mol Allergy. 2009;7(1):1–7. doi:10.1186/1476-7961-7-9.