Basketter D A, Kan-King-Yu D, Dierkes P, Jowsey I R
Unilever Safety and Environmental Assurance Centre, Colworth Park, Sharnbrook, Bedfordshire, UK.
Cutan Ocul Toxicol. 2007;26(4):279-86. doi: 10.1080/15569520701555359.
Chemicals that possess the capacity to cause skin sensitization have long been recognized to be reactive (electrophilic) or at least the precursor of an electrophile. The chemical species (hapten) covalently bound to skin protein then forms the antigen to which the immune system responds, with sufficient exposure ultimately leading to skin sensitization. However, for this process to occur, many have also considered that in addition to haptenation of skin protein, secondary stimuli (danger signals) are also necessary. Such signals might reasonably be expected to derive from keratinocytes and/or Langerhans cells perturbed by the chemical sensitizer. Whether this disturbance comes from the haptenation process itself or from other properties of the chemical is unknown. We hypothesized that chemicals that were stronger sensitizers might appear so, in part, as a consequence not only of greater (pro)electrophilic reactivity, but also if they were more able to produce inflammatory (danger) signals. To assess this, the sensitizing potency of 55 chemicals in the local lymph node assay was compared with their ability to produce pro-inflammatory signal release, measured as a function of their relative skin irritancy in guinea pigs. A limited trend was demonstrated, consistent with the hypothesis, but indicating that either skin irritation is a poor measure of danger signals, or that such signals are perhaps no more than a necessary requirement for the acquisition of skin sensitization rather than a key determinant of the relative potency of a skin sensitizing chemical. In addition, it is possible that irritancy alone does not represent a complete surrogate marker for the ability of a chemical to produce danger signals relevant to the induction of skin sensitization.
长期以来,人们一直认为具有引起皮肤致敏能力的化学物质具有反应性(亲电性),或者至少是亲电体的前体。与皮肤蛋白共价结合的化学物质(半抗原)随后形成免疫系统会做出反应的抗原,在足够的接触后最终导致皮肤致敏。然而,对于这个过程的发生,许多人还认为,除了皮肤蛋白的半抗原化之外,二次刺激(危险信号)也是必要的。可以合理地预期,这些信号来自受化学致敏剂干扰的角质形成细胞和/或朗格汉斯细胞。这种干扰是来自半抗原化过程本身还是来自化学物质的其他特性尚不清楚。我们假设,更强的致敏化学物质可能部分是由于不仅具有更高的(亲)电反应性,而且如果它们更能够产生炎症(危险)信号。为了评估这一点,将55种化学物质在局部淋巴结试验中的致敏效力与其产生促炎信号释放的能力进行了比较,促炎信号释放是根据它们在豚鼠中的相对皮肤刺激性来衡量的。结果显示出有限的趋势,与该假设一致,但表明要么皮肤刺激不是危险信号的良好衡量标准,要么这些信号可能仅仅是获得皮肤致敏的必要条件,而不是皮肤致敏化学物质相对效力的关键决定因素。此外,单独的刺激性可能并不完全代表一种化学物质产生与皮肤致敏诱导相关的危险信号的能力的替代标志物。