4.6 Article

An action spectrum for ultraviolet radiation-induced immunosuppression in humans

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF DERMATOLOGY
卷 164, 期 3, 页码 657-659

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2010.10161.x

关键词

-

资金

  1. Cure Cancer Australia
  2. Dermatology Research Foundation
  3. Epiderm
  4. National Health and Medical Research Council [302081]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

P>Background The immune-suppressive effects of sunlight play a central role in skin carcinogenesis. Ultraviolet (UV) B radiation is highly immunosuppressive even at suberythemal doses, and longwave UVA is now also recognized to cause immunosuppression in humans. The relative contributions of UVA and UVB to immunosuppression by incidental daily sun exposure are, however, unclear. Objectives We previously determined wavelength dependencies for immunosuppression by UVB and UVA wavebands in humans. We now aimed to calculate relative and solar immune-suppressive effectiveness across the UVB and UVA spectra. Methods We used the nickel model of recall contact hypersensitivity to determine UV immunosuppression dose responses and minimum immune suppression doses (MISDs) at 11 narrowbands from 289 to 392 nm. The relative immune-suppressive effectiveness of each narrowband was then determined as 1/MISD vs. wavelength. This curve was multiplied by the solar spectrum to show the relative immune-suppressive effectiveness of each waveband in sunlight. Results We found peaks of immune-suppressive effectiveness in the UVB waveband at 300 nm and in the UVA at 370 nm. Because of the far greater amount of longwave UVA in sunlight, the relative solar immune-suppressive effectiveness of UVA was threefold higher than that of UVB at doses equivalent to sun exposure from normal daily activities. Conclusions Longwave UVA, which abuts the visible light spectrum and is less effectively filtered by sunscreens than UVB, is likely to be the largest contributor to immunosuppression resulting from incidental daily sun exposure.

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