The use of ethanol:diethylphthalate as a vehicle for the local lymph node assay

Contact Dermatitis

Volumn 56, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 70-75

  Betts, Catherine J ^a   Beresford, L ^a   Dearman, R J ^a   Lalko, J ^b   Api, A P ^b   Kimber, I ^a  

^a JEALOTT S HILL INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH CENTRE   (United Kingdom)

^b RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR FRAGRANCE MATERIALS   (United States)

Author keywords

Allergic contact dermatitis; Local lymph node assay; Regulatory toxicology; Skin sensitization; Vehicle control data

Indexed keywords

ACETONE PLUS OLIVE OIL; CONTACT ALLERGEN; DIAGNOSTIC AGENT; ETHANOL PLUS PHTHALIC ACID DIETHYL ESTER; FRAGRANCE; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG;

ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; FEMALE; LOCAL LYMPH NODE ASSAY; LYMPH NODE; MOUSE; NONHUMAN;

ALLERGENS; ANIMALS; DERMATITIS, ALLERGIC CONTACT; DISEASE MODELS, ANIMAL; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; ETHANOL; FEMALE; LOCAL LYMPH NODE ASSAY; LYMPH NODES; MICE; MICE, INBRED CBA; PHTHALIC ACIDS; VEHICLES;

EID: 33846416192     PISSN: 01051873     EISSN: 16000536     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0536.2007.01036.x     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Kimber I, Basketter D A. The murine local lymph node assay: a commentary on collaborative studies and new directions. Food Chem Toxicol 1992: 30: 165-169.
2. Kimber I, Dearman R J, Basketter D A, Ryan C A, Gerberick G F. The local lymph node assay: past, present and future. Contact Dermatitis 2002: 47: 315-328.
3. Kimber I, Dearman R J, Scholes E W, Basketter D A. The local lymph node assay: developments and applications. Toxicology 1994: 93: 13-31.
4. Dearman R J, Basketter D A, Kimber I. Local lymph node assay: use in hazard and risk assessment. J Appl Toxicol 1999: 19: 299-306.
5. National Institutes of Health (NIH). The murine local lymph node assay: a test method for assessing the allergic contact dermatitis potential for chemicals/compounds. NIH no 99-4494, 1999.
6. Dean J H, Twerdok L E, Tice R R, Sailstad D M, Hattan D G, Stokes W S. ICCVAM evaluation of the murine local lymph node assay. II. Conclusions and recommendations of an independent scientific peer reviewpanel. Reg Toxicol Pharmacol 2001: 34: 258-273.
7. Balls M, Hellsten E. Statement on the validity of the local lymph node assay for skin sensitisation testing. ECVAM Joint Research Centre. European Commission. Ispra. ATLA 2000: 28: 366-367.
8. Kimber I, Basketter D A. Contact sensitisation: a new approach to risk assessment. Human Ecol Risk Assess 1997: 3: 385-395.
9. Basketter D A, Blaikie L, Dearman R J et al. Use of the local lymph node assay for estimation of relative contact allergenic potency. Contact Dermatitis 2000: 42: 344-348.
10. Gerberick G F, Robinson M K, Ryan C A, Dearman R J, Kimber I, Basketter D A, Wright Z, Marks J G. Contact allergenic potency: correlation of human and local lymph node assay data. Am J Contact Dermatitis 2001: 12: 156-161.
11. Kimber I, Basketter D A, Butler M et al. Classification of contact allergens according to potency: proposals. Food Chem Toxicol 2003: 41: 1799-1809.
12. Lea L J, Warbrick E V, Dearman R J, 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 Contact Dermatitis 1999: 10: 213-218.
13. Warbrick E V, Dearman R J, Basketter D A, Kimber I. Influence of application vehicle on skin sensitisation to methylchloroisothiazolinone/ methylisothiazolinone: an analysis using the local lymph node assay. Contact Dermatitis 1999: 41: 325-329.
14. Wright Z M, Basketter D A, Blaikie L, Cooper K J, Dearman R J, Kimber I. Vehicle effects on skin sensitizing potential of four chemicals: assessment using the local lymph node assay. Int J Cosmet Sci 2001: 23: 75-83.
15. Basketter D A, Gerberick G F, Kimber I. Skin sensitization, vehicle effects and the local lymph node assay. Food Chem Toxicol 2001: 39: 621-627.
16. Marzulli F N, Maibach H I. Contact allergy: predictive testing in humans. In: Advances in Modern Toxicology. Dermatotoxicology and Pharmacology, Vol. 4, Marzulli F N, Maibach H I (eds): London, Hemisphere, 1977: 353-371.
17. Cadby P A, Troy W R, Vey M G H. Consumer exposure to fragrance ingredients: providing estimates for safety evaluation. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2002: 36: 246-252.
18. Smith C K, Hotchkiss S A M. Xenobiotics as skin sensitisers: metabolic activation and detoxication, and protein-binding mechanisms. In: Allergic Contact Dermatitis, Chemical and Metabolic Mechanisms, Smith C K, Hotchkiss S A M (eds): London, Taylor & Francis, 2001: 121-205.
19. Basketter D A, Lea L J, Dickens A, Briggs D, Pate I, Dearman R J, Kimber I. A comparison of statistical approaches to the derivation of EC3 values from local lymph node assay dose responses. J Appl Toxicol 1999: 19: 261-266.
20. Dearman R J, Wright Z M, Basketter D A, Ryan C A, Gerberick G F, Kimber I. The suitability of hexyl cinnamic aldehyde as a calibrant for the murine local lymph node assay. Contact Dermatitis 2001: 44: 357-361.
21. Basketter D A, Gilmour N G, Briggs D, Ludwig U, Gerberick G F, Ryan C A, Dearman R J, Kimber I. Utility of historical vehicle control data in interpretation of the local lymph node assay. Contact Dermatitis 2003: 49: 37-41.
22. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Guidelines for testing of chemicals. Guideline No. 429. Skin Sensitisation: The Local Lymph Node Assay, Paris, 2002.