Unsaturated fatty acids show clear elicitation responses in a modified local lymph node assay with an elicitation phase, and test positive in the direct peptide reactivity assay.
Kunihiko Yamashita, Shinsuke Shinoda, Saori Hagiwara, H. Miyazaki, H. Itagaki
{"title":"Unsaturated fatty acids show clear elicitation responses in a modified local lymph node assay with an elicitation phase, and test positive in the direct peptide reactivity assay.","authors":"Kunihiko Yamashita, Shinsuke Shinoda, Saori Hagiwara, H. Miyazaki, H. Itagaki","doi":"10.2131/jts.40.843","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Test Guidelines (TG) adopted the murine local lymph node assay (LLNA) and guinea pig maximization test (GPMT) as stand-alone skin sensitization test methods. However, unsaturated carbon-carbon double-bond and/or lipid acids afforded false-positive results more frequently in the LLNA compared to those in the GPMT and/or in human subjects. In the current study, oleic, linoleic, linolenic, undecylenic, fumaric, maleic, and succinic acid and squalene were tested in a modified LLNA with an elicitation phase (LLNA:DAE), and in a direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA) to evaluate their skin-sensitizing potential. Oleic, linoleic, linolenic, undecylenic and maleic acid were positive in the LLNA:DAE, of which three, linoleic, linolenic, and maleic acid were positive in the DPRA. Furthermore, the results of the cross-sensitizing tests using four LLNA:DAE-positive chemicals were negative, indicating a chemical-specific elicitation response. In a previous report, the estimated concentration needed to produce a stimulation index of 3 (EC3) of linolenic acid, squalene, and maleic acid in the LLNA was < 10%. Therefore, these chemicals were classified as moderate skin sensitizers in the LLNA. However, the skin-sensitizing potential of all LLNA:DAE-positive chemicals was estimated as weak. These results suggested that oleic, linoleic, linolenic, undecylenic, and maleic acid had skin-sensitizing potential, and that the LLNA overestimated the skin-sensitizing potential compared to that estimated by the LLNA:DAE.","PeriodicalId":231048,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of toxicological sciences","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of toxicological sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2131/jts.40.843","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4
Abstract
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Test Guidelines (TG) adopted the murine local lymph node assay (LLNA) and guinea pig maximization test (GPMT) as stand-alone skin sensitization test methods. However, unsaturated carbon-carbon double-bond and/or lipid acids afforded false-positive results more frequently in the LLNA compared to those in the GPMT and/or in human subjects. In the current study, oleic, linoleic, linolenic, undecylenic, fumaric, maleic, and succinic acid and squalene were tested in a modified LLNA with an elicitation phase (LLNA:DAE), and in a direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA) to evaluate their skin-sensitizing potential. Oleic, linoleic, linolenic, undecylenic and maleic acid were positive in the LLNA:DAE, of which three, linoleic, linolenic, and maleic acid were positive in the DPRA. Furthermore, the results of the cross-sensitizing tests using four LLNA:DAE-positive chemicals were negative, indicating a chemical-specific elicitation response. In a previous report, the estimated concentration needed to produce a stimulation index of 3 (EC3) of linolenic acid, squalene, and maleic acid in the LLNA was < 10%. Therefore, these chemicals were classified as moderate skin sensitizers in the LLNA. However, the skin-sensitizing potential of all LLNA:DAE-positive chemicals was estimated as weak. These results suggested that oleic, linoleic, linolenic, undecylenic, and maleic acid had skin-sensitizing potential, and that the LLNA overestimated the skin-sensitizing potential compared to that estimated by the LLNA:DAE.