## 1 Introduction  
The identification and characterization of allergens and allergen-like proteins from food sources is a central concern in not only allergy research but is also of growing importance of the food industry, where safety and risk assessment are crucial for regulatory approval, product development, and consumer protection [1, 2, 3]. On the other hand, identification of a complete allergen profile from any food species is challenging and time-consuming because of the complexity of the proteins involved and the individual variability in immune responses. However, computational methods and the availability of complete genome sequences can streamline this process, leveraging bioinformatics tools to analyze protein structures and identify potential allergenic components more efficiently. These computational approaches hinge on key features, such as sequence similarity, conservedstructural motifs, and immunologically relevant domains that are commonly associated with known allergenic proteins [4]. Although in silico and computational tools cannot distinguish between the sensitization and elicitation phases of allergy development, international guidelines, including those from the FAO/WHO and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) [5], endorse their use, defining a protein as potentially allergenic if it shares more than 35% identity over 80 amino acids, or contains exact matches of 6-8 contiguous amino acids with a known allergen [5; 6]. These thresholds recognize in silico predictions as a first-pass assessment in allergen risk evaluation, form the basis of many allergenicity prediction platforms, and are widely adopted to streamline regulatory evaluations in both academic and industry contexts [4]. Fruit allergies, which impact 0.03% to 8% of the global population, are a growing health concern [2; 7]. Despite the incidence rate, many fruits remain underrepresented in allergen databases. In particular, tropical fruits have seen a surge in global consumption yet remain poorly characterized with respect to their allergenic profiles [4; 8]. Mango (_Mangifera indica_ L.), a widely consumed tropical fruit valued for its flavor and nutritional benefits, exemplifies the growing divide between increasing global dietary expansion and the gap in allergen knowledge. In recent decades, mango has experienced an evident rise in popularity beyond its native growing regions. Namely, in the United States, mango imports have quadrupled over the past two decades to meet consumer demands, from smoothes to skincare products, and therefore contribute to a broader and more frequent exposure across all age groups [9; 10]. A recent meta-analysis of studies on fruit allergies found that mangos are one of the top five tropical fruits that trigger fruit allergies [7]. Multiple studies have implicated mango as a significant allergen, with reported prevalence ranging from 0.3% in Switzerland to 16% in Thailand, and skin test positivity rates as high as 42.3% in some Chinese cohorts [4; 11]. Mango allergy manifests primarily in two immunological forms: immediate (Type I) and delayed (Type IV) hypersensitivity [11]. These reactions often manifest as contact dermatitis, rash, eczema, and blistering. As documented by [PERSON] et al. [12], a 30-year-old woman developed generalized urtic, facial edema, strong stomach pain, and watery diarrhea within several minutes of eating a mango. Despite its clinical significance, the allergenic profile of mango remains incompletely characterized. According to the WHO/IUIS Allergen Nomenclature Sub-committee ([[https://allergen.org/](https://allergen.org/)]([https://allergen.org/](https://allergen.org/)), accessed on 24 May 2025), only three allergenic proteins have been formally identified in mango, including chitinase (Man i 1), pathogenesis-related (PR) protein (Man i 2), and profilin (Man i 4), representing only a fraction of the mango's total proteome.