Cutaneous and ocular toxicology · 2010
A new in vitro method for identifying chemical sensitizers combining peptide binding with ARE/EpRE-mediated gene expression in human skin cells.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
McKim James M, Keller Don J, Gorski Joel R
Аннотация
Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is a significant safety concern for developers of cosmetic, personal care, chemical, pharmaceutical, and medical device products. The guinea pig maximization test (GMPT) and the murine local lymph node assay (LLNA) are accepted methods for determining chemical sensitization. Recent legislative initiatives in Europe require the development of new in vitro alternatives to animal tests for chemical sensitization. The aim of this project was to develop an in vitro screening method that uses a human skin cell line (HaCaT), chemical reactivity, and gene expression profiling to identify positive and negative responses, to place chemicals into potency categories of extreme/strong (ES), moderate (M), weak (W), and nonsensitizers (N), and to provide an estimate of corresponding LLNA values. The method and processing algorithm were developed from a training set of 39 chemicals possessing a wide range of sensitization potencies. Three cationic metals, chromium (Cr), nickel (Ni), and silver (Ag), were also evaluated in this model. Chemical reactivity was determined by measuring glutathione (GSH) depletion in a cell free matrix. Three signaling pathways (Keap1/Nrf 2/ARE/EpRE, ARNT/AhR/XRE, and Nrf1/MTF/MRE) that are known to be activated by sensitizing agents were monitored by measuring the relative abundance of 11 genes whose expression is controlled by one of these 3 pathways. Final exposure concentrations were based on toxicity and solubility. A range-finding experiment was conducted with each compound to determine cytotoxicity and solubility. Six exposure concentrations (0.1 to 2,500 microM) and an exposure time of 24 hours were used in the final experiments. Glutathione depletion alone did not provide the accuracy necessary to differentiate potency categories. However, chemical reactivity combined with gene expression profiles significantly improved the in vitro predictions. A predicted toxicity index (PTI) was determined for each test chemical. A comparison of LLNA values with PTI values revealed an inverse relationship. The large variation in LLNA data for compounds in the same potency category makes direct extrapolation from PTI to LLNA difficult. To challenge the system, 58 additional compounds were submitted in a blinded manner. Compounds placed into ES and M categories were considered positive, whereas compounds classified as W or N were considered negative. Accuracy was approximately 84%, with a sensitivity of 81% and a specificity of 92%. The model correctly identified 2 of 3 cationic metals as positive. In conclusion, the method described here demonstrates a valuable in vitro method for identifying chemicals and metals that induce skin sensitization.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AnimalsCell LineCytochrome P-450 CYP1A1Dermatitis, Allergic ContactGene ExpressionGlutathioneHaptensHumansHypoxia-Inducible Factor 1, alpha SubunitIntracellular Signaling Peptides and ProteinsKelch-Like ECH-Associated Protein 1KeratinocytesLocal Lymph Node AssayMafF Transcription FactorNuclear ProteinsResponse ElementsSignal TransductionToxicity Tests