4.7 Review

Xenobiotic-metabolizing enzymes in the skin of rat, mouse, pig, guinea pig, man, and in human skin models

期刊

ARCHIVES OF TOXICOLOGY
卷 88, 期 12, 页码 2135-2190

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00204-014-1382-8

关键词

Cutaneous xenobiotic metabolism; Species differences; Human skin models; Rat; Mouse; Pig; Guinea pig

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The exposure of the skin to medical drugs, skin care products, cosmetics, and other chemicals renders information on xenobiotic-metabolizing enzymes (XME) in the skin highly interesting. Since the use of freshly excised human skin for experimental investigations meets with ethical and practical limitations, information on XME in models comes in the focus including non-human mammalian species and in vitro skin models. This review attempts to summarize the information available in the open scientific literature on XME in the skin of human, rat, mouse, guinea pig, and pig as well as human primary skin cells, human cell lines, and reconstructed human skin models. The most salient outcome is that much more research on cutaneous XME is needed for solid metabolism-dependent efficacy and safety predictions, and the cutaneous metabolism comparisons have to be viewed with caution. Keeping this fully in mind at least with respect to some cutaneous XME, some models may tentatively be considered to approximate reasonable closeness to human skin. For dermal absorption and for skin irritation among many contributing XME, esterase activity is of special importance, which in pig skin, some human cell lines, and reconstructed skin models appears reasonably close to human skin. With respect to genotoxicity and sensitization, activating XME are not yet judgeable, but reactive metabolite-reducing XME in primary human keratinocytes and several reconstructed human skin models appear reasonably close to human skin. For a more detailed delineation and discussion of the severe limitations see the Overview and Conclusions section in the end of this review.

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