Evaluation of cross-sensitization among dye-intermediate agents using a modified lymphocyte transformation test

Archives of Toxicology

Volumn 70, Issue 7, 1996, Pages 414-419

  Li, Qing ^a   Inagaki, Hirofumi ^a   Minami, Masayasu ^a  

^a NIPPON MEDICAL SCHOOL   (Japan)

Author keywords

Color developing agents; Cross sensitization; Epidermal cells; Guinea pig; Lymphocyte transformation; M Phenylenediamine; P Aminophenol; P Phenylenediamine

Indexed keywords

1,3 PHENYLENEDIAMINE; 4 AMINOPHENOL; PHENYLENEDIAMINE;

ANIMAL CELL; ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ANIMAL MODEL; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CROSS ALLERGY; EPIDERMIS CELL; FEMALE; GUINEA PIG; LYMPH NODE CELL; LYMPHOCYTE TRANSFORMATION; LYMPHOCYTE TRANSFORMATION TEST; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

AMINOPHENOLS; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ANIMALS; ANTIGEN-PRESENTING CELLS; COLORING AGENTS; CROSS REACTIONS; DRUG INTERACTIONS; FEMALE; GUINEA PIGS; IMMUNIZATION; LYMPH NODES; LYMPHOCYTE ACTIVATION; LYMPHOCYTE COUNT; PATCH TESTS; PHENYLENEDIAMINES; SKIN;

ANIMALIA; CAVIA; CAVIA PORCELLUS; SUS SCROFA;

EID: 0029869990     PISSN: 03405761     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s002040050293     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Baer RL (1954) Cross-sensitization phenomena. In: MacKenna RMB (eds) Modern trends in dermatology (2nd edn) Butterworths, London, pp 232-258
2. Basketter DA, Goodwin BFJ (1988) Investigation of the prohapten concept. Cross reactions between 1,4-substituted benzene derivatives in the guinea pig. Contact Dermatitis 19: 248-253
3. Basketter DA, Liden C (1992) Further investigation of the prohapten concept: reactions to benzene derivatives in man. Contact Dermatitis 27: 90-97
4. Bjorkner B, Bruze M, Dahlquist I, Fregert S, Gruvberger B, Presson K (1986) Contact allergy to the preservative Kathon CG. Contact Dermatitis 14: 85-90
5. Braathen LR, Thorsby E (1983) Human epidermal Langerhans cells are more potent than blood monocytes in inducing some antigen-specific T-cell responses. Br J Dermatol 108: 139-146
6. Everness KM, Gawkrodger DJ, Botham PA, Hunter JAA (1990) The discrimination between nickel-sensitive and non-nickel-sensitive subjects by an in vitro lymphocyte transformation test. Br J Dermatol 122: 293-298
7. Fisher AA (1986) The role of patch testing. In: Fisher AA et al. (eds) Contact dermatitis (3rd edn). Lea and Febiger, Philadelphia, pp 9-29
8. Kimber I, Weisenberger C (1989) A murine local lymph node assay for the identification of contact allergens. Assay development and results of an initial validation study. Arch Toxicol 63: 274-282
9. Kimber I, Mitchell JA, Griffin AC (1986) Development of a murine local lymph node assay for the determination of sensitizing potential. Food Chem Toxic 24: 585-586
10. Kimber I, Hilton J, Weisenberger C (1989) The murine local lymph node assay for identification of contact allergens: a preliminary evaluation of in situ measurement of lymphocyte proliferation. Contact Dermatitis 21: 215-220
11. Kitano M, Okada N (1983) Separation of the epidermal sheet by dispase. Br J Dermatol 108: 555-560
12. Li Q, Aoyama K (1991) In vitro evaluation on contact sensitivity from DNCB and DNBS using lymphocyte blastogenesis response test. Jpn J Ind Health 33: 509-518
13. Li Q, Aoyama K (1992) Study of dose-response relationship in contact sensitivity using an in vitro assay. Contact Dermatitis 27: 16-21
14. Li Q, Aoyama K, Matsushita T (1992) Evaluation of contact allergy to chemicals using laser Doppler flowmetry (LDF) technique. Contact Dermatitis 26: 27-33
15. Li Q, Wang ZY, Inagaki H, Li YJ, Minami M (1995) Evaluation of contact sensitivity to formaldehyde and tetramethylthiuram monosulfide using a modified lymphocyte transformation test. Toxicology 104: 17-23
16. Liden C, Boman A (1988) Contact allergy to color developing agents in the guinea pig. Contact Dermatitis 19: 290-295
17. Magnusson B, Kligman AM (1969) The identification of contact allergens by animal assays, the guinea pig maximization test method. J Invest Dermatol 52: 268-276
18. Maurer T, Weirich EG, Hess R (1980) The optimization test in the guinea pig in relation to other predictive sensitization methods. Toxicology 15: 163-171
19. Michael KR (1989) Optimization of an in vitro lymphocytes blastogenesis assay for predictive assessment of immunologic responsiveness to contact sensitizers. J Invest Dermatol 92: 860-867
20. Mitchell JC (1975) The angry back syndrome: eczema creates eczema. Contact Dermatitis 1: 193-194
21. Picardo M, Cannistraci C, Cristaudo A, Luca CD, Santucci B (1990) Study on cross-reactivity to para group. Dermatologica 181: 104-108
22. Pieter R, Martien LK, Jan DB, Frank S (1987) The crucial role of human dendritic antigen-presenting cell subsets in nickel-specific T-cell proliferation. J Invest Dermatol 88: 550-554
23. Rasanen L, Lehto M, Jansen C, Reunala T, Leinikki P (1986) Human epidermal Langerhans cells and peripheral blood monocytes accessory cell function, autoactivating and alloactivating capacity and ETAF/IL-1 production. Scand J Immunol 24: 503-508
24. Rasanen L, Sainio H, Lehto M, Reunala T (1991) Lymphocyte proliferation test as a diagnostic aid in chromium contact sensitivity. Contact Dermatitis 25: 25-29
25. Skog E (1965) Sensitization to p-phenylenediamine. Arch Dermatol 92: 276-280