Effect of prolonged repeated exposure to formaldehyde donors with doses below the EC3 value on draining lymph node responses

Journal of Immunotoxicology

Volumn 4, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 239-246

  De Jong, Wim H ^a   De Klerk, Arja ^a   Beek, Marloes Ter ^a   Veenman, Christiaan ^a   Van Loveren, Henk ^b  

^a NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT   (Netherlands)

^b MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Formaldehyde; Hypersensitivity; Lymph node responses; Repeated exposure

Indexed keywords

2 CHLORO N (HYDROXYMETHYL)ACETAMIDE; ACETAMIDE DERIVATIVE; FORMALDEHYDE; METHENAMINE; PARAFORMALDEHYDE; QUATERNIUM 15; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG;

ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ANIMAL MODEL; CELL PROLIFERATION; CONFERENCE PAPER; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; IMMUNE RESPONSE; IMMUNIZATION; LYMPH NODE; LYMPHOCYTE TRANSFORMATION TEST; MOUSE; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; SENSITIZATION;

MUS;

EID: 34548436140     PISSN: 1547691X     EISSN: 1547691X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15476910701507967     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (38)

1. Api, A. M., Basketter, D. A., Cadby, P. A., Cano, M. F., Ellis, G., Gerberick, G. F., Griem, P., McNamee, P. M., Ryan, C. A., and Stafford, B. 2006. Dermal sensitization quantitative risk assessment (QRA) for fragrance ingredients. The Toxicologist 9:465.
2. Ashby, J., Richardson, C. R., Lefevre, P. A., Callander, R. D., and Styles, J. A. 1985. Chloracetamide-N-metholol: an example of an in vitro and in vivo clastogen which is non-mutagenic to Salmonella. Mutat. Res. 156:19-32.
3. Azadi, S., Klink, K. J., and Meade, B. J. 2004. Divergent immunological responses following glutaraldehyde exposure.Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 197:1-8.
4. Basketter, D. A., Andersen, K. E., Liden, C., Van Loveren, H., Boman, A., Kimber, I., Alanko. K., and Berggren, E. 2005b. Evaluation of the skin sensitizing potency of chemicals by using the existing methods and considerations of relevance for elicitation. Contact Dermatitis 52:39-43.
5. Basketter, D. A., Clapp, C., Jefferies, D., Safford, B., Ryan, C. A., Gerberick, F., Dearman, R. J., and Kimber, I. 2005a. Predictive identification of human skin sensitization thresholds. Contact Dermatitis 53:260-267.
6. Basketter, D. A., Evans, P., Gerberick, G. F., and Kimber, I. 2002. Factors affecting thresholds in allergic contact dermatitis: Safety and regulatory considerations. Contact Dermatitis 47:1-6.
7. Basketter, D. A., Lea, L. J., Cooper, K., Stocks, J., Dickens, A., Pate, I., Dearman, R. J., and Kimber, I. 1999a. Threshold for classification as a skin sensitizer in the local lymph node assay: a statistical evaluation. Food Chem. Toxicol. 37:1167-1174.
8. Basketter, D. A., Lea, L. J., Dickens, A., Briggs, D., Pate, I., Dearman, R. J., and Kimber, I. 1999b. A comparison of statistical approaches to the derivation of EC3 values from local lymph node assay dose responses. J. Appl. Toxicol. 19:261-266.
9. Basketter, D. A., and Scholes, E. W. 1992. Comparison of the local lymph node assay with the guinea pig maximization test for the detection of a range of contact allergens. Food Chem. Toxicol. 32:543-547.
10. Dean, J. H., Twerdok, L. E., Tice, R. R., Sailstad, D. M., Hattan, D. G., and Stokes, W. S. 2001. ICCVAM evaluation of the murine local lymph node assay. II. Conclusions and recommendations of an independent scientific peer review panel. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 34:258-273.
11. Dearman, R. J., Basketter, D. A., and Kimber, I. 1999. Local lymph node assay: Use in hazard identification and risk assessment. J. Appl. Toxicol. 19:299-306.
12. Dearman, R. J., Hilton, J., Evans, P., Harvey, P., Basketter, D. A., and Kimber, I. 1998. Temporal stability of local lymph node responses to hexylcinnamic aldehyde. J. Appl. Toxicol. 18:281-284.
13. De Jong, W. H., Tentij, M., Spiekstra, S. W., Vandebriel, R. J., and Van Loveren, H. 2002a. Determination of the sensitizing activity of the rubber contact sensitizers TMTD, ZDMC, MBT and DEA in a modified local lymph node assay and the effect of sodium dodecyl sulfate pretreatment on local lymph node responses. Toxicology 176:123-134.
14. De Jong, W. H., Van Och, F. M. M., Den Hartog Jager, C. F., Spiekstra, S. W., Slob, W., Vandebriel, R., and Van Loveren, H. 2002b. Ranking of allergenic potency of rubber chemicals in a modified local lymph node assay. Toxicol. Sci. 66:226-232.
15. Dreyfors, J. M., Jones, S. B., and Sayed, Y. 1989. Hexamethylenetetramine: A review. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 50:579-585.
16. Felter, S. P., Robinson, M. K., Basketter, D. A., and Gerberick, G. F. 2002. A review of the scientific basis for uncertainty factors for use in quantitative risk assessment for the induction of allergic contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 47:257-266.
17. Friedmann, P. S., and Moss, C. 1985. Quantification of contact hypersensitivity in man. In: Models in Dermatology (Maibach, H. I., and Lowe, N. J., Eds.), Karger: Basel, Switzerland, pp. 275-281.
18. Gerberick, F. G., Ryan, C. A., Kimber, I., Dearman, R. J., Lea, L. J., and Basketter, D. A. 2000. Local lymph node assay: Validation assessment for regulatory purposes. Am. J. Contact Dermatitis 11:3-18.
19. Griem, P., Goebel, C., and Scheffler, H. 2003. Proposal for a risk assessment methodology for skin sensitization based on sensitization potency data. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 38:269-290.
20. Haneke, K. E., Tice, R. R., Carson, B. L., Margolin, B. H., and Stokes, W. S. 2001. ICCVAM evaluation of the murine local lymph node assay. III. Data analysis completed by the National Toxicology Program Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 34:274-286.
21. ICCVAM, Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods, NIH Publication No.99-4494. 1999. The murine local lymph node assay: a test method for assessing the allergic contact dermatitis potential of chemicals/compounds. Internal NIH Publication. National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, US Public Health Service, Department of Health and Human Services, National Toxicology Program, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
22. Kimber, I., and Basketter, D. A. 1992. The murine local lymph node assay: A commentary on collaborative studies and newdirections. Food Chem. Toxicol. 30:165-169.
23. Kimber, I., Basketter, D. A., Berthold, K., Butler, M., Garrigue, J. L., Lea, L., Newsome, C., Roggeband, R., Steiling, W., Stropp, G., Waterman, S., and Wiemann, C. 2001. Skin sensitization testing in potency and risk assessment. Toxicol. Sci. 59:198-208.
24. Kimber, I., Basketter, D.A., Butler, M., Gamer, A., Garrigue, J.-L., Gerberick, G.F., Newsome, C., Steiling, W., and Vohr, H.-W. 2003. Classification of contact allergens according to potency: Proposals. Food Chem. Toxicol. 41:1799-1809.
25. Kimber, I., Hilton, J., Dearman, R. J., Gerberick, G. F., Ryan, C. A., Basketter, D. A., Scholes, E. W., Ladics, G. S., Loveless, S. E., and House, R. V. 1995. An international evaluation of the murine local lymph node assay and comparison of modified procedures. Toxicology 103:63-73.
26. Loveless, S. E., Ladics, G. S., Gerberick, G. F., Ryan, C. A., Basketter, D. A., Scholes, E. W., House, R. V., Hilton, J., Dearman, R. J., and Kimber, I. 1996. Further evaluation of the local lymph node assay in the final phase of an international collaborative trial. Toxicology 108:141-152.
27. OECD. 2002. Guideline 429. Guideline for the Testing of Chemicals. Skin Sensitisation: Local Lymph Node Assay. OECD, Paris, France.
28. Puchtler, H., and Meloan, S.N. 1985. On the chemistry of formaldehyde fixation and its effects on immunohistochemical reactions. Histochemistry 82:201-204.
29. Rastogi, S. C. 2000. Analytical control of preservative labelling on skin creams. Contact Dermatitis 43:339-343.
30. Sasseville, D. 2004. Hypersensitivity to preservatives Dermatol. Ther. 17:251-263.
31. Sailstad, D. M., Hattan, D., Hill, R. N., and Stokes, W. S. 2001. ICCVAM evaluation of the murine local lymph node assay. I The ICCVAM review process. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 34:249-257.
32. Schneider, K., and Akkam, Z., 2004. Quantitative relationship between the local lymph node assay and human skin sensitization assays. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 39:245-255.
33. Slob, W., and Pieters, M. N. 1998. A probabilistic approach for deriving acceptable human intake limits and human health risks from toxicological studies: General framework. Risk Anal. 18:787-798.
34. Slob, W. 2002. Dose response modeling of continuous endpoints. Toxicol. Sci. 66:298-312.
35. Van Och, F. M. M., Slob, W., De Jong, W. H., Vandebriel, R., and Van Loveren, H. 2000. A quantitative method for assessing the sensitizing potency of low molecular weight chemicals using a local lymph node assay: Employment of a regression method that includes determination of the uncertainty margins. Toxicology 146:49-59.
36. Van Och, F. M. M., Vandebriel, R., De Jong, W. H., and Van Loveren, H. 2003. Effect of prolonged exposure to low antigen concentration for sensitization. Toxicology 184:23-30.
37. White, S. I., Friedmann, P. S., Moss, C., and Simpson, J. M. 1986. The effect of altering the area of application and dose per unit area on sensitization by DNCB. Br. J. Dermatol. 115:663-668.
38. Woolhiser, M. R., Munson, A. E., and Meade, B. J. 2000. Comparison of mouse strains using the local lymph node assay. Toxicology 146:221-227.