What determines skin sensitization potency-myths, maybes and realities. Part 1. the 500 molecular weight cut-off

Contact Dermatitis

Volumn 68, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 32-41

  Roberts, David W ^a   Mekenyan, Ovanes G ^b   Dimitrov, Sabcho D ^b   Dimitrova, Gergana D ^b  

^a LIVERPOOL JOHN MOORES UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b ASSEN ZLATAROV UNIVERSITY   (Bulgaria)

Author keywords

bioavailability; molecular weight; penetration; sensitization; structure activity

Indexed keywords

1,1,3 TRIS(2 METHYL 4 HYDROXY 5 TERT BUTYLPHENYL)BUTANE; 1,2,5,6,9,10 HEXABROMOCYCLODODECANE; 3 (3,5 DI TERT BUTYL 4 HYDROXYPHENYL)PROPIONIC ACID OCTADECYL ESTER; 3,4 EPOXYCLOHEXYLETHYLCYCLOPOLYMETHYLSILOXANE; ACID RED 18; BISPHENOL A BIS(2 HYDROXYPROPYL) ETHER DIMETHACRYLATE; CHEMICAL COMPOUND; CONTACT ALLERGEN; DIISOSTEARYL MALATE; DILAURYL THIODIPROPIONATE; DIMETHYLDIOCTADECYLAMMONIUM CHLORIDE; MACROGOL; MADECASSIC ACID; METHYLENE DISTEARAMIDE; TRIS(2 ETHYLHEXYL)BENZENE 1,2,4 TRICARBOXYLATE; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG;

ARTICLE; GUINEA PIG; HUMAN; MOLECULAR WEIGHT; MOUSE; NONHUMAN; SKIN ALLERGY; SKIN SENSITIZATION;

ALLERGENS; ANIMALS; DATABASES, FACTUAL; DERMATITIS, ALLERGIC CONTACT; GUINEA PIGS; MICE; MOLECULAR WEIGHT;

EID: 84870899568     PISSN: 01051873     EISSN: 16000536     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0536.2012.02160.x     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Natsch A, Bauch C, Foertsch L, et al., The intra- and inter-laboratory reproducibility and predictivity of the KeratinoSens assay to predict skin sensitizers in vitro: results of a ring-study in five laboratories. Toxicol In Vitro 2011: 25: 733-744.
2. Gerberick F, Ryan C, Kern P, Dearman R, Kimber I, Patlewicz G, Basketter D., A chemical dataset for evaluation of alternative approaches to skin-sensitization testing. Contact Dermatitis 2004: 50: 274-288.
3. Lecluse L, Piskin G, Bos J., The use of patch tests in determining hypersensitivity to etanercept and infliximab. Arch Dermatol 2008: 144: 1070-1071.
4. Gerberick F, Ryan C, Kern P, Schlatter H, Dearman R, Kimber I, Patlewicz G, Basketter D., Compilation of historical local lymph node data for evaluation of skin sensitization alternative methods. Dermatitis 2005: 16: 157-202.
5. Alvarez-Sanchez R, Basketter D, Pease C, Lepoittevin J-P., Studies of chemical selectivity of hapten, reactivity, and skin sensitization. 3. Synthesis and studies on the reactivity toward model nucleophiles of the 13C-labeled skin sensitisers, 5-chloro-2-methylisothiazol-3-one (MCI) and 2 methylisothiazol-3- one (MI). Chem Res Toxicol 2003: 16: 627-636.
6. Aptula A, Roberts D W, Cronin M., From experiment to theory: molecular orbital parameters to interpret the skin sensitization potential of 5-chloro-2-methylisothiazol-3-one and 2-methylisothiazol-3-one. Chem Res Toxicol 2005: 18: 324-329.
7. Roberts D W, Lepoittevin J-P., Hapten-protein interactions. In: Allergic Contact Dermatitis. The Molecular Basis, Lepoittevin J-P, Basketter D A, Goosens A, Karlberg A-T, (eds): Heidelberg, Springer, 1997: pp. 81-111.
8. Patlewicz G, Dimitrov S D, Low L K et al., TIMES-SS-a promising tool for the assessment of skin sensitization hazard. A characterization with respect to the OECD validation principles for (Q)SARs and an external evaluation for predictivity. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2007: 48: 225-239.
9. Kern P S, Gerberick F, Ryan C A, Kimber I, Aptula A O, Basketter D A., Local lymph node data for the evaluation of skin sensitization alternatives: a second compilation. Dermatitis 2010: 21: 8-32.
10. Natsch A, Gfeller H, Rothaupt M, Ellis G., Utility and limitations of a peptide reactivity assay to predict fragrance allergens in vitro. Toxicol In Vitro 2007: 21: 1220-1226.
11. Cronin M T, Basketter D A., Multivariate QSAR analysis of a skin sensitization database. SAR QSAR Environ Res 1994: 2: 159-179.
12. Roberts D W, Aptula A O, Patlewicz G., Electrophilic chemistry related to skin sensitization. Reaction mechanistic applicability domain classification for a published data set of 106 chemicals tested in the mouse local lymph node assay. Chem Res Toxicol 2007: 20: 44-60.
13. Tomb R., Allergic contact dermatitis from eosin. Contact Dermatitis 1991: 24: 27-29.
14. Geier J, Lessmann H, Uter W, Schnuch A., Are concomitant patch test reactions to epoxy resin and BIS-GMA indicative of cross-reactivity? Contact Dermatitis 2007: 57: 376-380.
15. Liippo J, Kousa P, Lammintausta K., The relevance of chlorhexidine contact allergy. Contact Dermatitis 2011: 64: 229-234.
16. ® M. Contact Dermatitis 2011: 65: 48-49.
17. Bos J D, Meinardi M M H M., The 500 Dalton rule for the skin penetration of chemical compounds and drugs. Exp Dermatol 2000: 9: 165-169.
18. Smith-Pease K, Basketter D, Patlewicz G., Contact allergy: the role of skin chemistry and metabolism. Clin Exp Dermatol 2003: 2: 177-183.
19. Basketter D, Pease C, Kasting G et al., Skin sensitisation and epidermal disposition: the relevance of epidermal disposition for sensitisation hazard identification and risk assessment. The report of ECVAM workshop 59. Altern Lab Anim 2007: 35: 137-154.
20. Roberts D W, Aptula A O., Determinants of skin sensitisation potential. J Appl Toxicol 2008: 28: 377-387.
21. Schaefer H, Redelmeier T, Ledemann J., Skin penetration. In, Johansen J D, Frosch P J, Lepoittevin J-P., (eds): Contact Dermatitis, Berlin Heidelberg, Springer-Verlag, 2011: pp. 215-225.
22. Roberts D W., Interconversion between local lymph node assay EC3 units. Contact Dermatitis 2011: 65: 59.