Flier J, Boorsma D M, Bruynzeel D P, Van Beek P J, Stoof T J, Scheper R J, Willemze R, Tensen C P
Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
J Invest Dermatol. 1999 Oct;113(4):574-8. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1747.1999.00730.x.
Differentiation between allergic and irritant contact dermatitis reactions is difficult, as both inflammatory diseases are clinically, histologically, and immunohistologically very similar. Previous studies in mice revealed that the chemokine IP-10 is exclusively expressed in allergic contact dermatitis reactions. In the present study, we investigated whether the mRNA expression of IP-10 and the related CXCR3 activating chemokines, Mig and IP-9 are also differentially expressed in human allergic contact dermatitis and irritant contact dermatitis reactions. Skin biopsies from allergic (13 cases) and sodium lauryl sulfate-induced irritant patch test reactions (13 cases), obtained 1-72 h after patch testing, were studied by means of an in situ hybridization technique. Results of chemokine mRNA expression were correlated with clinical scoring, histology, and immunohistochemical data including the proportion of inflammatory cells expressing CXCR3, the receptor for IP-10, Mig, and IP-9, and ICAM-1 and HLA-DR expression on keratinocytes. IP-10, Mig, and IP-9 mRNA were detected in seven of nine allergic contact dermatitis reactions after 24-72 h, but not in sodium lauryl sulfate-induced irritant contact dermatitis reactions. ICAM-1 expression by keratinocytes was only found in allergic contact dermatitis reactions and correlated with chemokine expression. Moreover, up to 50% of the infiltrating cells in allergic contact dermatitis expressed CXCR3, in contrast to only 20% in irritant contact dermatitis reactions. In conclusion, we have demonstrated differences in chemokine expression between allergic contact dermatitis and irritant contact dermatitis reactions, which might reflect different regulatory mechanisms operating in these diseases and may be an important clue for differentiation between allergic contact dermatitis and irritant contact dermatitis reactions.
区分过敏性接触性皮炎反应和刺激性接触性皮炎反应很困难,因为这两种炎症性疾病在临床、组织学和免疫组织学上都非常相似。先前对小鼠的研究表明,趋化因子IP-10仅在过敏性接触性皮炎反应中表达。在本研究中,我们调查了IP-10以及相关的CXCR3激活趋化因子Mig和IP-9的mRNA表达在人类过敏性接触性皮炎和刺激性接触性皮炎反应中是否也存在差异表达。通过原位杂交技术对斑贴试验后1至72小时获得的过敏性(13例)和十二烷基硫酸钠诱导的刺激性斑贴试验反应(13例)的皮肤活检样本进行研究。趋化因子mRNA表达结果与临床评分、组织学以及免疫组化数据相关,包括表达CXCR3(IP-10、Mig和IP-9的受体)的炎症细胞比例以及角质形成细胞上ICAM-1和HLA-DR的表达。在24至72小时后,9例过敏性接触性皮炎反应中有7例检测到IP-10、Mig和IP-9的mRNA,但在十二烷基硫酸钠诱导的刺激性接触性皮炎反应中未检测到。角质形成细胞的ICAM-1表达仅在过敏性接触性皮炎反应中发现,并与趋化因子表达相关。此外,过敏性接触性皮炎中高达50%的浸润细胞表达CXCR3,而刺激性接触性皮炎反应中仅为20%。总之,我们已经证明了过敏性接触性皮炎和刺激性接触性皮炎反应在趋化因子表达上存在差异,这可能反映了这些疾病中不同的调节机制,并且可能是区分过敏性接触性皮炎和刺激性接触性皮炎反应的重要线索。