Use of the local lymph node assay for the estimation of relative contact allergenic potency

Contact Dermatitis

Volumn 42, Issue 6, 2000, Pages 344-348

  Basketter, D A ^a   Blaikie, L ^a   Dearman, R J ^b   Kimber, I ^b   Ryan, C A ^c   Gerberick, G F ^c   Harvey, P ^d   Evans, P ^d   White, I R ^e   Rycroft, R J G ^e  

^a UNILEVER RESEARCH   (United Kingdom)

^b SK10 4TJ   (United Kingdom)

^c Human and Environmental Safety Division   (United States)

^d HEALTH AND SAFETY EXECUTIVE   (United Kingdom)

^e ST THOMAS HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Allergic contact dermatitis; Contact allergy; Local lymph node assay; Mouse sensitization; Sensitization potential; Skin sensitization risk assessment

Indexed keywords

ACETONE; CONTACT ALLERGEN; OLIVE OIL;

ALLERGENICITY; ARTICLE; ASSAY; CELL PROLIFERATION; CONTACT ALLERGY; CONTROLLED STUDY; HUMAN; LYMPH NODE; LYMPH NODE CELL; LYMPHATIC DRAINAGE; REFERENCE VALUE; RISK ASSESSMENT; SKIN ALLERGY; SKIN SENSITIZATION;

ALLERGENS; ANIMALS; BIOLOGICAL ASSAY; DERMATITIS, ALLERGIC CONTACT; HUMANS; LYMPH NODES; MICE; RISK ASSESSMENT; SKIN TESTS;

EID: 0034111053     PISSN: 01051873     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0536.2000.042006344.x     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. 1. Gerberick GF, Robinson MK, Stotts J. An approach to allergic contact sensitization risk assessment of new chemicals and product ingredients. Am J Cont Derm 1993: 4: 205-211.
2. 2. Basketter DA, Gerberick GF, Robinson M. Risk assessment. In: Kimber I, Maurer Th (eds): The toxicology of contact hypersensitivity. London: Taylor and Francis, 1996: 152-164.
3. 3. Basketter DA, Evans P, Gerberick GF, Kimber I. Chemical allergy: Estimation of potency, thresholds and risk assessments. Comments in Toxicology 2000: in press.
4. 4. Basketter DA. Skin sensitization: risk assessment. International Journal of Cosmetic Science 1998: 20: 141-150.
5. 5. Basketter DA, Cookman G, Gerberick GF, Hamaide N, Potokar M. Skin sensitization thresholds: Determination in predictive models. Food and Chemical Toxicol 1997: 35: 417-425.
6. 6. Scientific Committee on Cosmetology. Notes of guidance for testing of cosmetic ingredients for their safety evaluation. Off J Eur Comm 1997: XXIV/1878/97.
7. 7. Robinson MK, Gerberick GF, Ryan CA, McNamee P, White I, Basketter DA. The importance of exposure estimation in the assessment of skin sensitization risk. Contact Dermatitis 2000: 42: 251-259.
8. 8. Andersen KE, Maibach HI. Guinea pig sensitization assays: an overview. In: Andersen K E, Maibach H I (eds): Contact allergy predictive tests in guinea pigs. Current Problems in Dermatology 1985: 14: 59-106. New York: Karger.
9. 9. Botham PA, Basketter DA, Maurer Th, Mueller D, Potokar M, Bontinck W J. Skin sensitization - a critical review of predictive test methods in animal and man. Food Chem Toxicol 1991: 29: 275-286.
10. 10. Andersen KE, Volund A, Frankild S. The guinea pig maximization test with a multiple dose design. Acta Dermatovenereologica 1995: 75: 463-469.
11. 11. Kimber I, Weisenberger C. A murine local lymph node assay for the identification of contact allergens. Archives of Toxicology 1989: 63: 274-282.
12. 12. Kimber I, Basketter DA. The murine local lymph node assay; collaborative studies and new directions: a commentary. Food Chem Toxicol 1992: 30: 165-169.
13. 13. Basketter DA, Gerberick GF, Kimber I, Loveless SE. The local lymph node assay - A viable alternative to currently accepted skin sensitization tests. Food Chem Toxicol 1996: 34: 985-997.
14. 14. Gerberick GF, Ryan CA, Kimber I, Dearman RJ, Lea, LJ, Basketter DA. Local lymph node assay validation assessment for regulatory purposes. Am J Cont Derm 2000: 11: in press.
15. 15. Kimber I, Basketter DA. Contact sensitization: A new approach to risk assessment. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 1997: 3: 385-395.
16. 16. Dearman RJ, Basketter DA, Kimber I. The local lymph node assay: use in hazard and risk assessment. J Applied Toxicol 1999: 19: 299-306.
17. 17. Hilton J, Dearman RJ, Harvey P, Evans P, Basketter DA, Kimber I. Estimation of relative skin sensitizing potency using the local lymph node assay: A comparison of formaldehyde end glutaraldehyde. Am J Contact Derm 1998: 9: 29-33.
18. 18. Basketter DA, Rodford RA, Kimber I, Smith I, Wahlberg JE. Skin sensitization risk assessment: A comparative evaluation of three isothiazolinone biocides. Contact Dermatitis 1999: 40: 150-154.
19. 19. Kligman A. The identification of contact allergens by human assay (III). The maximization test: a procedure for screening and rating contact sensitizers. J Invest Dermatol 1966: 47: 393-409.
20. 20. Marzulli FN, Maibach HI. Antimicrobials: experimental contact sensitization in man. J Soc Cosmet Chem 1973: 24: 399-421.
21. 21. Marzulli FN, Maibach HI. The use of graded concentration in studying skin sensitizers: Experimental contact sensitization in man. Food Cosmet Toxicol 1974: 12: 219-227.
22. 22. Marzulli FN, Maibach HI. Contact allergy: predictive testing of fragrance ingredients in humans by Draize and maximization methods. J Environ Path Toxic 1981: 3: 235-245.
23. 23. Marzulli FN, Maibach HI. Further studies of vehicles and elicitation concentration in experimental contact sensitization testing in humans. Contact Dermatitis 1980: 6: 131-133.
24. 24. Ryan CA, Gerberick GF, Cruse LW, Basketter DA, Lea LJ, Blaikie L, Dearman RJ, Warbrick EV, Kimber I. Activity of human contact allergens in the murine local lymph node assay. Contact Dermatitis 2000: 43: in press.
25. 25. Basketter DA, Lea L, Cooper K, Dickens A, Briggs D, Pate I, Dearman RJ, Kimber I. A comparison of statistical approaches to derivation of EC3 values from local lymph node assay dose responses. J Appl Toxicol 1999: 19: 261-266.
26. 26. Loveless SE, Ladics GS, Gerberick GF, Ryan, CA, Basketter DA, Scholes EW, House RV, Hilton J, Dearman RJ, Kimber 1. Further evaluation of the local lymph node assay in the final phase of an international collaborative trial. Toxicol 1996: 108: 141-152.
27. 27. Dearman RJ, Hilton J, Evans P, Harvey P, Basketter DA, Kimber I. Temporal stability of local lymph node assay responses to hexyl cinnamic aldehyde. J Applied Toxicol 1998: 18: 281-284.
28. 28. Warbrick EV, Dearman RJ, Lea LJ, Basketter DA, Kimber I. Local lymph node assay responses to paraphenylenediamine: intra-and inter-laboratory evaluations. J Appl Toxicol 1999: 19: 255-260.
29. 29. Basketter DA. The value of animal assays and the quenching phenomenon. In: Frosch P J, Johansen J D, White I (eds): Proceedings of the Fragrance Symposium. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag 1997: 166-174.
30. 30. European Community. Dangerous Substance Directive, 22nd Adaptation to technical progress (96/54/EC). Off J Eur Comm 1996: L248.
31. 31. Basketter DA, Flyvholm MA, Menné T. Classification criteria for skin sensitizing chemicals: A Commentary. Contact Dermatitis 1999: 40: 175-182.
32. 32. Kimber I, Gerberick GF, Basketter DA. Thresholds in contact sensitization: Theoretical considerations and practical applications. Food and Chem Toxicol 1999: 37: 553-560.
33. 33. Lea LJ, Warbrick V, Dearman RJ, Harvey P, Kimber I, Basketter D A. The impact of vehicle on assessment of relative skin sensitization potency of 1,4-dihydroquinone in the local lymph node assay. Am J Cont Derm 1999: 10: 213-218.
34. 34. Warbrick EV, Dearman RJ, Basketter DA, Kimber I. Influence of application vehicle on skin sensitization to the isothiazolinone CMIT: an analysis using the local lymph node assay. Contact Dermatitis 1999: 41: 325-329.
35. 35. COSHH ESSENTIALS. Easy steps to control chemicals (1999). HSE Books, Sudbury, Suffolk.
36. 36. Basketter DA, Scholes EW. Comparison of the local lymph node assay with the guinea-pig maximization test for the detection of a range of contact allergens. Food and Chemical Toxicology 1992: 30: 65-69.
37. 37. Baskener DA, Gerberick GF, Kimber I. Strategies for identifying false responses in predictive sensitization tests. Food and Chemical Toxicology 1998: 36 327-333.
38. 38. Basketter DA, Gerberick GF, Kimber I, Willis C. Wiley and Sons, Chichester: The toxicology of contact dermatitis, 1999.