Assessment of the sensitizing potential of textile disperse dyes and some of their metabolites by the loose-fit coculture-based sensitization assay (LCSA)

Institute of Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Luisenstr. 7, 10117 Berlin, Germany.
Archives of Toxicology (Impact Factor: 5.98). 02/2012; 86(5):733-40. DOI: 10.1007/s00204-012-0811-9
Source: PubMed


Certain textile disperse dyes are known to cause allergic reactions of the human skin. Here, we examined 8 disperse dyes and 7 products of azo-cleavage of these dyes in an in vitro assay. We used the loose-fit coculture-based sensitization assay (LCSA) of primary human keratinocytes and of allogenic dendritic cell-related cells for combined testing of the sensitizing and irritative properties of these substances. The obtained data were compared to data generated in a modified version of the local lymph node assay by our working group. Disperse Blue 1 (DB1), p-nitroaniline (pNA) and p-aminoacetanilide (AAA) showed no sensitizing potential under our experimental conditions. Disperse Blue 124 (DB124), Disperse Yellow 3 (DY3), Disperse Orange 37/76 (DO37), Disperse Blue 106 (DB106), Disperse Red 1 (DR1), 2-amino-p-cresol (ApC), Disperse Orange 3 (DO3) and 2,6-dichloro-4-nitroaniline (DCh) were categorized as extreme sensitizers. Para-phenylenediamine (pPD) was categorized as strong sensitizer, and 2-amino-5-nitrothiazole (ANT) and 2-(N-ethylanilino)-ethanol (EAE) as weak sensitizers. All dyes, except for DB1, and ApC turned out to be strong irritants. DB1, ANT and DCh showed only weak irritative potential. PPD, pNA, EAE and AAA did not show any irritative effect at the concentration range tested. These results correlate with data derived from the modified version of LLNA and human data. Therefore, the LCSA represents a suitable test system to simultaneously analyse two crucial properties of substances relevant for allergy induction.

Download full-text


Available from: Thomas Platzek, Jul 03, 2014
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Contact allergies are complex diseases, and it is estimated that 15-20 % of the general population suffers from contact allergy, with increasing prevalence. Evaluation of the sensitization potential of a substance is usually carried out in animal models. Nowadays, there is much interest in reducing and ultimately replacing current animal tests. Furthermore, as of 2013, the EU has posed a ban on animal testing of cosmetic ingredients that includes skin sensitization. Therefore, predictive and robust in vitro tests are urgently needed. In order to establish alternatives to animal testing, the in vitro tests must mimic the very complex interactions between the sensitizing chemical and the different parts of the immune system. This review article summarizes recent efforts to develop in vitro tests for predicting skin sensitizers. Cell-based assays, in chemico methods and, to a lesser extent, in silico methods are presented together with a discussion of their current status. With considerable progress having been achieved during the last years, the rationale today is that data from different non-animal test methods will have to be combined in order to obtain reliable hazard and potency information on potential skin sensitizers.
    Archives of Toxicology 06/2012; 86(8):1273-95. DOI:10.1007/s00204-012-0867-6 · 5.98 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Simultaneous contact allergies to Disperse Orange 1, 4-nitroaniline and p-aminodiphenylamine (PADPA), as well as to other disperse azo dyes and to p-phenylenediamine (PPD), have been reported. Cross-reactivity is one of the possible explanations for simultaneous reactions between PPD and disperse azo dyes. Some metabolites from the azo reduction of these disperse azo dyes could be sensitizers, as human skin bacteria produce azo reductases. To investigate the sensitizing capacity of Disperse Orange 1, PADPA and 4-nitroaniline, and the cross-reactivity between these substances and Disperse Yellow 3, its potential metabolites from azo reduction (4-aminoacetanilide and 2-amino-p-cresol), and PPD. The guinea-pig maximization test was used. It was found that both Disperse Orange 1 and PADPA are strong sensitizers and cross-react with each other. We were unable to sensitize guinea-pigs with 4-nitroaniline tested in equimolar concentrations to Disperse Orange 1. The results indicate that patients sensitized primarily to Disperse Orange 1 will also react to PADPA, which can be found mainly in hair dyes. PPD, 4-nitroaniline, 4-aminoacetanilide, 2-amino-p-cresol and Disperse Yellow 3 did not show any cross-reactivity with Disperse Orange 1 or PADPA.
    Contact Dermatitis 07/2013; 69(1):40-8. DOI:10.1111/cod.12078 · 3.75 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Parabens, methylisothiazolinone (MI) and its derivative methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI), are commonly used as preservatives in personal care products. They can cause hypersensitivity reactions of the human skin. We have tested a set of nine parabens, MI alone and in combination with MCI in the loose-fit coculture-based sensitization assay (LCSA). The coculture of primary human keratinocytes and allogenic dendritic cell-related cells (DC-rc) in this assay emulates the in vivo situation of the human skin. Sensitization potency of the test substances was assessed by flow cytometric analysis of the DC-rc maturation marker CD86. Determination of the concentration required to cause a half-maximal increase in CD86-expression (EC50sens) allowed a quantitative evaluation. The cytotoxicity of test substances as indicator for irritative potency was measured by 7-AAD (7-amino-actinomycin D) staining. Parabens exhibited weak (methyl-, ethyl-, propyl- and isopropylparaben) or strong (butyl-, isobutyl-, pentyl- and benzylparaben) effects, whereas phenylparaben was found to be a moderate sensitizer. Sensitization potencies of parabens correlated with side chain length. Due to a pronounced cytotoxicity, we could not estimate an EC50sens value for MI, whereas MI/MCI was classified as sensitizer and also showed cytotoxic effects. Parabens showed no (methyl- and ethylparaben) or weak irritative potencies (propyl-, isopropyl-, butyl-, isobutyl-, phenyl- and benzylparaben), only pentylparaben was rated to be irritative. Overall, we were able to demonstrate and compare the sensitizing potencies of parabens in this in vitro test. Furthermore, we showed an irritative potency for most of the preservatives. The data further support the usefulness of the LCSA for comparison of the sensitizing potencies of xenobiotics.
    Archive für Toxikologie 11/2014; DOI:10.1007/s00204-014-1406-4 · 5.98 Impact Factor
Show more