4.7 Article

Observation of hapten-induced sensitization responses for the development of a mouse skin sensitization test, including the elicitation phase

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-24547-1

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan [21K14988, 20J01553]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study confirmed the reactivity of mice to skin sensitizing substances and proposed a new protocol (Protocol 2) for a relatively simple skin sensitization test. Compared to other protocols and a local lymph node assay, Protocol 2 showed more pronounced skin inflammation, immune responses, and cell proliferation in auricular lymph nodes.
The only official method that can detect the skin sensitizing potential of chemicals, including the elicitation response, is the OECD test guideline (TG) 406. However, this guideline uses guinea pigs, which requires complex procedures. Since a simple and complete test method for evaluating skin sensitization is needed, especially for mechanistic studies of skin sensitization, this study confirmed the reactivity of mice to skin sensitizing substances. We set up a protocol involving one induction exposure of the test substance to the back skin, followed by three challenge exposures to the auricle (Protocol 2), and compared their skin sensitization responses with the results of two exposures to the auricle and back skin every 2 weeks (Protocol 1) and a local lymph node assay (TG442B). A hapten 2,4-dinitrofluorobenzene caused significant auricular thickening, skin inflammation, and enlarged auricular lymph nodes in Protocols 1 and 2. These changes were more pronounced in Protocol 2. Plasma IgE and IgG1 and gene expression of IL4, IFN gamma, and perforin were significantly increased in Protocol 2. Cell proliferation in the auricular lymph nodes was observed in both protocols as in TG442B. These results indicate that Protocol 2 can be a good candidate for a relatively simple skin sensitization test.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据