Skin sensitization potency of methyl methacrylate in the local lymph node assay: comparisons with guinea-pig data and human experience

被引:30
作者
Betts, Catherine J.
Dearman, Rebecca J.
Heylings, Jon R.
Kimber, Ian
Basketter, David A.
机构
[1] Syngenta Cent Toxicol Lab, Macclesfield SK1 4TJ, Cheshire, England
[2] Safety & Environm Assurance Ctr, Sharnbrook MK44 1LQ, Beds, England
关键词
dinitrochlorobenzene; local lymph node assay; methyl methacrylate; risk assessment; skin sensitization potency;
D O I
10.1111/j.1600-0536.2006.00898.x
中图分类号
R392 [医学免疫学];
学科分类号
100102 ;
摘要
There is compelling evidence that contact allergens differ substantially (by 4 or 5 orders of magnitude) with respect to their inherent skin-sensitizing potency. Relative potency can now be measured effectively using the mouse local lymph node assay (LLNA) and such data form the basis of risk assessment and risk management strategies. Such determinations also facilitate distinctions being drawn between the prevalence of skin sensitization to a particular contact allergen and inherent potency. The distinction is important because chemicals that are implicated as common causes of contact allergy are not necessarily potent sensitizers. One example is provided by nickel that is undoubtedly a common cause of allergic contact dermatitis, but is a comparatively weak sensitizer in predictive tests. In an attempt to explore other examples of contact allergens where there may exist a discrepancy between prevalence and potency, we describe here analyses conducted with methyl methacrylate (MMA). Results of LLNA studies have been interpreted in the context of historical clinical data on occupational allergic contact dermatitis associated with exposure to MMA.
引用
收藏
页码:140 / 147
页数:8
相关论文
共 36 条
[1]   Use of the local lymph node assay for the estimation of relative contact allergenic potency [J].
Basketter, DA ;
Blaikie, L ;
Dearman, RJ ;
Kimber, I ;
Ryan, CA ;
Gerberick, GF ;
Harvey, P ;
Evans, P ;
White, IR ;
Rycroft, RJG .
CONTACT DERMATITIS, 2000, 42 (06) :344-348
[2]  
Basketter DA, 1999, J APPL TOXICOL, V19, P261, DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1263(199907/08)19:4<261::AID-JAT572>3.3.CO
[3]  
2-X
[4]  
FRIEDMANN PS, 1994, IMMUNOTOXICOLOGY IMM, P589
[5]  
Gerberick G F, 2001, Am J Contact Dermat, V12, P156, DOI 10.1053/ajcd.2001.23926
[6]   PREVALENCE AND SOURCES OF OCCUPATIONAL CONTACT SENSITIZATION TO ACRYLATES IN ITALY [J].
GUERRA, L ;
VINCENZI, C ;
PELUSO, AM ;
TOSTI, A .
CONTACT DERMATITIS, 1993, 28 (02) :101-103
[7]   10 years of patch testing with the (meth)acrylate series [J].
Kanerva, L ;
Jolanki, R ;
Estlander, T .
CONTACT DERMATITIS, 1997, 37 (06) :255-258
[8]   Occupational allergic contact dermatitis due to acrylates in Lodz [J].
KiecSwierczynska, M .
CONTACT DERMATITIS, 1996, 34 (06) :419-422
[9]   What makes a chemical an allergen? [J].
Kimber, I ;
Dearman, RJ .
ANNALS OF ALLERGY ASTHMA & IMMUNOLOGY, 2003, 90 (05) :28-31
[10]   Classification of contact allergens according to potency: proposals [J].
Kimber, I ;
Basketter, DA ;
Butler, M ;
Gamer, A ;
Garrigue, JL ;
Gerberick, GF ;
Newsome, C ;
Steiling, W ;
Vohr, HW .
FOOD AND CHEMICAL TOXICOLOGY, 2003, 41 (12) :1799-1809