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.
不饱和脂肪酸在具有激发期的改良局部淋巴结试验中显示出明确的激发反应,并且在直接肽反应性试验中呈阳性。
经济合作与发展组织(OECD)试验指南(TG)采用小鼠局部淋巴结试验(LLNA)和豚鼠最大化试验(GPMT)作为独立的皮肤致敏试验方法。然而,与GPMT和/或人类受试者相比,不饱和碳-碳双键和/或脂质酸在LLNA中更容易产生假阳性结果。在目前的研究中,油酸、亚油酸、亚麻酸、癸烯酸、富马酸、马来酸、琥珀酸和角鲨烯在带有激发期(LLNA:DAE)的修饰LLNA中进行了测试,并在直接肽反应性试验(DPRA)中评估了它们的皮肤致敏潜力。油酸、亚油酸、亚麻酸、十一烯酸和马来酸在LLNA:DAE中呈阳性,其中亚油酸、亚麻酸和马来酸在dpa中呈阳性。此外,使用四种LLNA: dae阳性化学物质进行交叉致敏试验的结果为阴性,表明存在化学特异性激发反应。在之前的一份报告中,LLNA中亚麻酸、角鲨烯和马来酸产生3 (EC3)刺激指数所需的估计浓度< 10%。因此,这些化学物质在LLNA中被归类为中度皮肤致敏剂。然而,所有LLNA: dae阳性化学物质的皮肤致敏潜力估计为弱。这些结果表明,油酸、亚油酸、亚麻酸、烯丙酸和马来酸具有皮肤致敏电位,与LLNA:DAE估计的皮肤致敏电位相比,LLNA高估了皮肤致敏电位。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信