Ravel Guillaume, Descotes Jacques
MDS Pharma Services, 69210 Saint-Germain s/l'Arbresle, France.
J Appl Toxicol. 2005 Nov-Dec;25(6):451-8. doi: 10.1002/jat.1072.
The popliteal lymph node assay (PLNA) derives from the hypothesis that some supposedly immune-mediated adverse effects induced by certain pharmaceuticals involve a mechanism resembling a graft-versus-host reaction. The injection of many but not all of these compounds into the footpad of mice or rats produces an increase in the weight and/or cellularity of the popliteal lymph node in the treated limb (direct PLNA). Some of the compounds known to cause these adverse effects in humans, however, failed to induce a positive PLNA response, leading to refinements of the technique to include pretreatment with enzyme inducers, depletion of CD4(+) T cells or additional endpoints such as histological examination, lymphocyte subset analysis and cytokine fingerprinting. Alternative approaches have been used to improve further the predictability of the assay. In the secondary PLNA, the test compound is injected twice in order to illicit a greater secondary response, thus suggesting a memory-specific T cell response. In the adoptive PLNA, popliteal lymph node cells from treated mice are injected into the footpad of naive mice; a marked response to a subsequent footpad challenge demonstrates the involvement of T cells. Finally, the reporter antigens TNP-Ficoll and TNP-ovalbumin are used to differentiate compounds that induce responses involving neo-antigen help or co-stimulatory signals (modified PLNA). The PLNA is increasingly considered as a tool for detection of the potential to induce both sensitization and autoimmune reactions. A major current limitation is validation. A small inter-laboratory validation study of the direct PLNA found consistent results. No such study has been performed using an alternative protocol. Other issues include selection of the optimal protocol for an improved prediction of sensitization vs autoimmunity, and the elimination of false-positive responses due to primary irritation. Finally, a better understanding of underlying mechanisms is essential to determine the most relevant endpoints. The confusion resulting from use of the PLNA to predict autoimmune-like reactions as well as sensitization should be clarified. Interestingly, most drugs that were positive in the direct PLNA are also known to cause drug hypersensitivity syndrome in treated patients. This observation is expected to open new avenues of research.
腘窝淋巴结试验(PLNA)源于这样一种假说:某些药物诱导的一些所谓免疫介导的不良反应涉及一种类似于移植物抗宿主反应的机制。将许多(但不是全部)此类化合物注射到小鼠或大鼠的足垫中,会使受试肢体的腘窝淋巴结重量和/或细胞数量增加(直接PLNA)。然而,一些已知会在人类中引起这些不良反应的化合物未能诱导出阳性PLNA反应,这促使人们对该技术进行改进,包括用酶诱导剂预处理、耗尽CD4(+) T细胞或增加其他终点指标,如组织学检查、淋巴细胞亚群分析和细胞因子指纹图谱分析。人们还采用了其他方法来进一步提高该试验的可预测性。在二级PLNA中,将受试化合物注射两次以引发更强的二级反应,从而提示存在记忆特异性T细胞反应。在过继性PLNA中,将经处理小鼠的腘窝淋巴结细胞注射到未接触过抗原的小鼠足垫中;对随后的足垫攻击产生明显反应表明T细胞参与其中。最后,使用报告抗原TNP-菲可和TNP-卵清蛋白来区分诱导涉及新抗原辅助或共刺激信号反应的化合物(改良PLNA)。PLNA越来越被视为一种检测诱导致敏和自身免疫反应潜力的工具。当前的一个主要局限性是验证。一项关于直接PLNA的小型实验室间验证研究得出了一致的结果。尚未使用替代方案进行此类研究。其他问题包括选择最佳方案以更好地预测致敏与自身免疫,以及消除由原发性刺激引起的假阳性反应。最后,更好地理解潜在机制对于确定最相关的终点指标至关重要。应澄清使用PLNA预测自身免疫样反应以及致敏所导致的混淆。有趣的是,大多数在直接PLNA中呈阳性的药物也已知会在接受治疗的患者中引起药物超敏反应综合征。这一观察结果有望开辟新的研究途径。