Guinea Pig Sensitization Test Research Articles

염증세포주를 이용한 생체재료 용출물의 체외 생체적합성 평가

Various biometerials have been researched and have been developed for treatment of some disease through transplantation to body. They have been evaluated by in vitro cytotoxicity test using some skin-derived cell lines for prediction of their biocompatibility in vivo. However, the results of experiments using mesenchymal or epithelial cells could not be considered in vivo immune reaction. In this study, we evaluated the biomaterial-elution (elute from high density polyethylene film) using some cell lines (L929, Jurkat, U937) in vitro, and then that results were compared with in vivo results from guinea pig sensitization test. In sensitization test, saline and elution of syringe could not induce erythema, but only DNCB (hypersensitive chemical) induce erythema at guinea pig sensitization test. In cell experiment, the cytotoxicity results of inflammatory cells (Jurkat; T lymphocyte, U937; monocyte) was no difference with L929 (fibroblast) in the overall trend. However, inflammatory cell lines were only secreted inflammatory cytokine (TNF-<TEX>${\alpha}$</TEX>, INF-<TEX>${\gamma}$</TEX>) in some materials (biomateriallution, FAC, DNCB). And the biomaterial-elution did not have toxicity to the cells, but it induced the inflammatory cytokines in inflammatory cell lines only. So, we were predicted inflammatory reaction through the cytokine resultes of inflammatory cell lines, and it was more correlated with in vivo results than cytotoxicity test. Therefore, we suggested that the inflammatory cytokine assay using inflammatory cell lines are more effective method in vitro for evaluation of biocompatibility of biomaterials or chemicals.

Surfactants: Inconsistent results between the LLNA and guinea pig sensitization tests

Surfactants: Inconsistent results between the LLNA and guinea pig sensitization tests

Final Report on the Safety Assessment of Hexamidine and Hexamidine Diisethionate1

Hexamidine Diisethionate functions as a biocide in cosmetics at concentrations of 0.03% to 0.1% in 38 cosmetic products. Hexamidine functions as a biocide and preservative in cosmetics, but is not in current use in cosmetics, but it is used in over-the-counter (OTC) drug products. Hexamidine was poorly absorbed by human cadaver skin when in water-oil formulations or in a gel that simulated a cosmetic product formulation. Hexamidine Diisethionate was poorly absorbed by the skin of live rats and was not stored in any tissue type. Hexamidine Diisethionate given to rats intravenously was rapidly metabolized to Hexamidine. Excretion was primarily via the feces, with a small amount excreted in the urine. Acute oral LD(50) values of Hexamidine Diisethionate were 0.71 to 2.5 g/kg in mice and 0.75 g/kg in rats. Dermal exposure to 4 g/kg Hexamidine Diisethionate in rats or up to 9.4 ml/kg of a 0.1% Hexamidine Diisethionate solution under occlusion in rabbits produced no mortality or other signs of toxicity. The no-observed-effect level (NOEL) for oral subchronic toxicity of Hexamidine Diisethionate in rats was 50 mg/kg/day. No signs of toxicity were observed with 2% Hexamidine Diisethionate in subchronic studies using rabbits. Application of 0.1 ml of 0.11% Hexamidine Diisethionate in aqueous solution to the eyes of rabbits produced transient reactions; 0.05% produced no reactions. Slight erythema was observed with 0.10% Hexamidine Diisethionate applied to the abraded skin of 1/11 albino rabbits. A 40% solution of Hexamidine Diisethionate applied to 10% of the body surface of rats produced slight erythema, slight edema, and scabbing in some animals at varying times after treatment. Hexamidine Diisethionate was not a sensitizer in the guinea pig maximization test or in an intracutaneous guinea pig sensitization test. Hexamidine Diisethionate was not a photosensitizer in albino rabbits. Hexamidine Diisethionate was not mutagenic in a bacterial reverse mutagenicity assay or clastogenic in mammalian cells. Hexamidine Diisethionate at 0.10% did not provoke primary irritation, inflammation, or sensitization in a clinical test of 200 human subjects. One case report of photosensitivity to Hexamidine and one of contact sensitivity to Hexamidine were reported. There were nine case reports of contact sensitivity to Hexamidine Diisethionate. A European safety assessment recommended a limit of 0.1% Hexamidine Diisethionate in leave-on and rinse-off cosmetic products. In considering the available data, the Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) Expert Panel acknowledged the lack of carcinogenicity and reproductive/developmental toxicity data. Because genotoxicity studies were negative, and there were no structural alerts, the Panel concluded that it was unlikely that these ingredients would be carcinogenic. Because the rate of absorption of Hexamidine and Hexamidine Diisethionate is slow, there is no tissue accumulation, and excretion is rapid and complete, and there was no toxicity in a subchronic study, the Panel concluded that dermal exposures would not likely present a risk of reproductive/developmental toxicity. The Panel noted that a guinea pig maximization study using Hexamidine Diisethionate produced no dermal reactions and that a clinical test at 0.1% produced no irritation or sensitization. The Panel also expressed concern regarding the possible presence of 1,4-dioxane as an impurity, and stressed that the cosmetic industry should continue to use the necessary purification procedures to remove these impurities from the ingredient before blending into cosmetic formulations. The Panel noted that there are no data for concentration of use for eye makeup and baby products, and was concerned that there should not be unrestricted concentration levels in these product categories. Although there are gaps in knowledge about product use, the overall information available on the types of products in which these ingredients are used and at what concentration indicate a pattern of use. Within this overall pattern of use, the Expert Panel considers all ingredients in this group to be safe at concentrations up to and including 0.1%.

The Local Lymph Node Assay: Current Position in the Regulatory Classification of Skin Sensitizing Chemicals

The local lymph node assay (LLNA) is being used increasingly in the identification of skin sensitizing chemicals for regulatory purposes. In the context of new chemicals legislation (REACH) in Europe, it is the preferred assay. The rationale for this is that the LLNA quantitative and objective approach to skin sensitization testing allied with the important animal welfare benefits that the method offers. However, as with certain guinea pig sensitization tests before it, this increasing use also brings experience with an increasingly wide range of industrial and other chemicals where the outcome of the assay does not always necessarily meet with the expectations of those conducting it. Sometimes, the result appears to be a false negative, but rather more commonly, the complaint is that the chemical represents a false positive. Against this background we have here reviewed a number of instances where false positive and false negative results have been described and have sought to reconcile science with expectation. Based on these analyses, it is our conclusion that false positives and false negatives do occur in the LLNA, as they do with any other skin sensitization assay (and indeed with all tests used for hazard identification), and that this occurs for a number of reasons. We further conclude, however, that false positive results in the LLNA, as with the guinea pig maximization test, arise most commonly via failure to distinguish what is scientifically correct from that which is unpalatable. The consequences of this confusion are discussed in the article, particularly in relation to the need to integrate both potency measurement and risk assessments into classification and labelling schemes that aim to manage potential risks to human health.

Final report on the safety assessment of PEG-25 propylene glycol stearate, PEG-75 propylene glycol stearate, PEG-120 propylene glycol stearate, PEG-10 propylene glycol, PEG-8 propylene glycol cocoate, and PEG-55 propylene glycol oleate.

The ingredients considered in this safety assessment are polyethylene glycol ethers of either propylene glycol itself, propylene glycol stearate, propylene glycol oleate, or propylene glycol cocoate. They function in cosmetic formulations as surfactant--cleansing agents; surfactant-solubilizing agents; surfactant--emulsifying agents; skin conditioning agents--humectant; skin-conditioning agents--emollient; and solvents. Those in current use are used in only a small number of cosmetic formulations. Some are not currently used. Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) Propylene Glycol Cocoates and PEG Propylene Glycol Oleates are produced by the esterification of polyoxyalkyl alcohols with lauric acid and oleic acid, respectively. Although there is no information available on the method of manufacture of the other polymers, information was available describing impurities, including ethylene oxide (maximum 1 ppm), 1,4-dioxane (maximum 5 ppm), polycyclic aromatic compounds (maximum 1 ppm), and heavy metals-lead, iron, cobalt, nickel, cadmium, and arsenic included (maximum 10 ppm combined). In an acute oral toxicity study, PEG-25 Propylene Glycol Stearate was not toxic. An antiperspirant product containing 2.0% PEG-25 Propylene Glycol Stearate was nonirritating to mildly irritating to the eyes of rabbits. This product was also practically nonirritating to the skin of rabbits in single-insult occlusive patch tests. In a guinea pig sensitization test, PEG-25 Propylene Glycol Stearate was classified as nonallergenic at challenge concentrations of 25% and 50% in petrolatum. PEG-25 Propylene Glycol Stearate and PEG-55 Propylene Glycol Oleate were negative in clinical patch tests. Based on the available data, it was concluded that these ingredients are safe as used (concentrations no greater than 10%) in cosmetic formulations. Based on evidence of sensitization and nephrotoxicity in burn patients treated with a PEG-based antimicrobial preparation, the ingredients included in this review should not be used on damaged skin.

Final Report on the Safety Assessment of PEG-25 Propylene Glycol Stearate, PEG-75 Propylene Glycol Stearate, PEG-120 Propylene Glycol Stearate, PEG-10 Propylene Glycol, PEG-8 Propylene Glycol Cocoate, and PEG-55 Propylene Glycol Oleate

The ingredients considered in this safety assessment are polyethylene glycol ethers of either propylene glycol itself, propylene glycol stearate, propylene glycol oleate, or propylene glycol cocoate. They function in cosmetic formulations as surfactant—cleansing agents; surfactant—solubilizing agents; surfactant—emulsifying agents; skin conditioning agents—humectant; skin-conditioning agents—emollient; and solvents. Those in current use are used in only a small number of cosmetic formulations. Some are not currently used. Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) Propylene Glycol Cocoates and PEG Propylene Glycol Oleates are produced by the esterification of polyoxyalkyl alcohols with lauric acid and oleic acid, respectively. Although there is no information available on the method of manufacture of the other polymers, information was available describing impurities, including ethylene oxide (maximum 1 ppm), 1,4-dioxane (maximum 5 ppm), polycyclic aromatic compounds (maximum 1 ppm), and heavy metals—lead, iron, cobalt, nickel, cadmium, and arsenic included (maximum 10 ppm combined). In an acute oral toxicity study, PEG-25 Propylene Glycol Stearate was not toxic. An antiperspirant product containing 2.0% PEG-25 Propylene Glycol Stearate was nonirritating to mildly irritating to the eyes of rabbits. This product was also practically nonirritating to the skin of rabbits in single-insult occlusive patch tests. In a guinea pig sensitization test, PEG-25 Propylene Glycol Stearate was classified as nonallergenic at challenge concentrations of 25% and 50% in petrolatum. PEG-25 Propylene Glycol Stearate and PEG-55 Propylene Glycol Oleate were negative in clinical patch tests. Based on the available data, it was concluded that these ingredients are safe as used (concentrations no greater than 10%) in cosmetic formulations. Based on evidence of sensitization and nephrotoxicity in burn patients treated with a PEG-based antimicrobial preparation, the ingredients included in this review should not be used on damaged skin.

Evaluation of skin sensitization response of dialkyl (C6-C13) phthalate esters.

Isolated case reports suggest that dermal contact with some phthalate esters may result in skin sensitization. This issue was investigated in guinea pig sensitization tests, but the results were inconclusive. Consequently, 7 dialkyl phthalate esters, (diisohexyl, diisoheptyl, di(2-ethylhexyl), diisononyl, diisodecyl, diundecyl and ditridecyl phthalates), ranging in carbon number from C6 to C13, were tested in a 104-person panel human repeated insult patch test (HRIPT) using the modified Draize procedure. Test concentrations of 100% were selected for the induction and challenge phases of the HRIPT based upon a 24-h occluded irritation test on 15 panelists. Under the conditions of this HRIPT, no evidence of dermal irritation or sensitization for any of the 7 phthalate esters was observed in the 104-person panel. These HRIPT data provide evidence for the lack of experimental skin sensitization potential for the phthalate esters tested.

Structure-activity relationships in the murine local lymph node assay for skin sensitization: alpha,beta-diketones.

The biological activity of skin-sensitizing chemicals is related to their ability to react, either directly or after metabolic activation, with appropriate skin proteins. For direct acting electrophilic compounds, this ability can be modelled, using the RAI (relative alkylation index) approach, by a combination of electrophilicity and hydrophobicity parameters. Several structure-activity relationships based on this approach have been reported, but most of them cover guinea pig sensitization test data on what chemists would classify as relatively soft electrophilic chemicals. In the present work, an electrophilicity parameter based on Taft substituent constants is derived for hard electrophiles having a reactive carbonyl group, and is used to calculate RAI values for the analysis of sensitization test data obtained in the murine local lymph node assay (LLNA) for a series of alpha, beta-diketones. The sensitization potential of these reactive hard electrophilic carbonyl compounds in the LLNA shows a good correlation with the RAI. Overall, the findings reaffirm our view that physical organic chemistry is the key to understanding why some chemicals sensitize more strongly than others, while some do not sensitize at all, and provide further evidence of the value of the LLNA for SAR studies.

Cytotoxic, allergic and genotoxic activity of a nickel-titanium alloy

The nearly equiatomic nickel-titanium (NiTi) alloy is known for its shape memory properties. These properties can be put to excellent use in various biomedical applications, such as wires for orthodontic tooth alignment and osteosynthesis staples. The aim of this study was to evaluate the short-term biological safety of the NiTi alloy. We carried out an end-point dilution minimal essential medium (MEM) extract cytotoxicity test, a guinea-pig sensitization test and two genotoxicity tests: the Salmonella reverse mutation test and the chromosomal aberration test. The NiTi alloy showed no cytotoxic, allergic or genotoxic activity, similar to the clinical reference control material AISI 316 LVM stainless steel. This promising biological behaviour was most likely due to a minimal release of ions and in that way a reflection of the good corrosion resistance of the NiTi alloy. Given these very good results, together with the good tissue compatibility as shown in several implantation studies in the literature, the NiTi alloy can be regarded as a biologically safe implant material with many promising clinical applications.

Evaluation of skin sensitization potential of nickel, chromium, titanium and zirconium salts using guinea-pigs and mice

Contact sensitization capacity of four metal salts, nickel sulphate (NiSO 4), potassium dichromate (K 2Cr 2O 7), titanium chloride (TiCl 4) and zirconium chloride (ZrCl 4), was evaluated using guinea-pigs and mice. In the guinea-pig sensitization tests, we set up an injection concentration to 1% for all chemicals, and changed the challenge concentration. Guinea-pigs were sensitized with NiSO 4, K 2Cr 2O 7 and TiCl 4. Among the test metal salts, K 2Cr 2O 7 showed the highest sensitization rate and strongest skin reactions. ZrCl 4 did not cause any sensitization responses under our experimental conditions. Minimum challenge concentration to cause a skin response was <0.25% for K 2Cr 2O 7, 0.5% for NiSO 4 and 2% for TiCl 4, respectively. A sensitive mouse lymph node assay (SLNA) also determined NiSO 4 and K 2Cr 2O 7 as a sensitizer. In the SLNA, TiCl 4 caused mild lymph node responses, but was classified as a non-sensitizer as well as ZrCl 4. Considering these results, the order of sensitization potential was K 2Cr 2O 7 > NiSO 4 > TiCl 4 > ZrCl 4. NiSO 4- and K 2Cr 2O 7-sensitized animals did not show any reactions to ZrCl 4 and TiCl 4. No cross-reaction among these metal salts was found.

Identification of contact allergens in C.I. Solvent Red 23 (commercial Sudan III) by chemical analysis and animal testing

C.I. Solvent Red 23, commercial Sudan III, is widely used in cosmetic products. Chemical analyses and guinea pig sensitization tests were carried out to identify its contact allergens. In the Magnusson & Kligman guinea pig maximization test, C.I. Solvent Red 23 showed 20% positive reactions. By conducting chemical analyses with HPLC and GLC, 2-naphthol (82 ppm), azobenzene (48 ppm), Sudan I (570 ppm) and many unknown impurities, as well as the main constituent pigment Sudan III (87%), were found. The chemical structure of one unknown impurity was identified as an isomer of Sudan III. We found that purified Sudan III showed no positive reaction, while the isomer elicited 30% positive reactions, in the same guinea pig test. Furthermore, cross-sensitization with p-phenylenediamine was investigated using the guinea pig test. Animals sensitized with p-phenylenediamine also showed positive elicitation reactions with purified Sudan III. From these results, the contact allergenicity of C.I. Solvent Red 23 is considered to be due to impurities, including the isomer of Sudan III, 1-(o-phenylazophenylazo)-2-naphthol. Positive reactions to Sudan III previously demonstrated in hairdressers are due to cross-sensitivity with p-phenylenediamine.

The use of proton nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometry ( 1H NMR) for monitoring the reaction of epoxides with butylamine and predictive capabilities of the relative alkylation index (RAI) for skin sensitization by epoxides

A group of alkyl epoxides was compared for their guinea pig sensitization capacity and reactivities towards a protein-surrogate substrate, n-butylamine. Instead of the previously reported use of a titration method for determination of alkylation rate, proton nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometry ( 1H NMR) was used. The resulting relative alkylation indices (RAIs) were calculated in order to correlate these indices with the results of the guinea pig sensitization test data. The use of 1H NMR was determined to be a useful tool for collection of in vitro reaction rates, but there was no correlation between the RAIs and guinea pig sensitization score for this group of epoxides.

Use of Abraded Skin to Enhance the Sensitivity of the Topical Occlusive Guinea Pig Sensitization Test

Abrading the skin of guinea pigs was investigated as a method to enhance the sensitivity of a topical occlusive method for detecting potential contact sensitizers. Three studies were conducted using isoeugenol in petrolatum as the sensitizer.In each of the studies, the concentration of isoeugenol that produced strong irritation to nonabraded skin during induction produced the strongest sen-sitization reactions at the challenge applications. Of the groups induced with the highest nonirritating concentration of isoeugenol, the incidence and severity of reactions were highest overall in the abraded animals.The results of these studies suggest that abrading the skin may increase the sensitivity of the closed patch guinea pig test procedure by enhancing skin penetration of the sensitizing agent.

A modified technique of guinea pig testing to identify delayed hypersensitivity allergens.

A modified guinea pig testing technique was developed for the detection of weak allergens and allergenicity of materials unsuitable for testing by intradermal injection. This test involved the use of Freund's complete adjuvant to stimulate the immune system of the animal, and external application instead of intradermal injection of the test compound in the induction stage. The allergenicity of Sudan III, Brilliant Lake Red R and Sudan I was tested by this procedure. In the dose-effect study of Sudan I, the dose dependency of a positive reaction of the induction and challenge concentrations was recognized. The test was compared with three other guinea pig sensitization tests. The results obtained with this test correlated well with those obtained with the guinea pig maximization test.

A collection of guinea pig sensitization test results--grouped by chemical class.

Various chemical groups were evaluated for their skin sensitization potential in the guinea pig. In general, amines, acetanilides, pyridines, piperidines, and sulfones were positive in the guinea pig test. Since these tests were done over a period of years, any further structural-related correlations or predictions should be made with caution due to variability of sample purity or differences in methodology. It is important to realize that every chemical which is positive in the guinea pig should not be construed as definitive evidence of human skin sensitization.