4.6 Article

The use of suction blisters to measure sunscreen protection against UVR-induced DNA damage

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.jphotobiol.2017.12.021

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The formation of DNA photoproducts caused by solar UVR exposure needs to be investigated in-vivo and in particular in order to assess sunscreens' level of protection against solar genotoxicity. The study's purposes were: i) to evaluate if the roof of suction blisters is an appropriate sampling method for measuring photoproducts, and ii) to measure in-vivo sunscreen protection against cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers. Skin areas on the interior forearms of eight healthy volunteers were exposed in-vivo to 2 MED of simulated solar radiation (SSR) and to 15 MED on a sunscreen protected area. After irradiation, six suction blisters were induced and the blister roofs were collected. Analysis of SSR-induced CPDs was performed by two independent methods: a chromatography coupled to mass spectroscopy (HPLC-MS/MS) approach and a 3D-imaging of CPD immunostaining by multiphoton microscopy on floating epidermal sheets. HPLC-MS/MS analyses showed that SSR-unexposed skin presented no CPD dimers, whereas 2 MED SSR-exposed skin showed a significant number of TT-CPD. The sunscreen covered skin exposed to 15 MED appeared highly protected from DNA damage, as the amount of CPD-dimers remained below the detection limit. The multiphoton-immunostaining analysis consistently showed that no CPD staining was observed on the non-SSR-exposed skin. A significant increase of CPD staining intensity and number of CPD-positive cells were observed on the 2 MED SSR-exposed skin. Sunscreen protected skin presented a very low staining intensity and the number of CPD-positive cells remained very close to non-SSR-exposed skin. This study showed that suction blister samples are very appropriate for measuring CPD dimers in-vivo, and that sunscreens provide high protection against UVR-induced DNA damage.

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

4.6
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