Desensitization of animals to the inflammatory effects of ultraviolet radiation is mediated through mechanisms which are distinct from those responsible for endotoxin tolerance.

The studies presented in this report indicate that the mechanisms responsible for both ultraviolet radiation (UVR)- and lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced desensitization are different from one another and appear to be regulated at the site(s) of administration of the inflammatory agent. Furthermore, desensitization to either UVR or LPS is not due to the inability of interleukin 1 (IL 1)-sensitive target cells within these animals to respond to this endogenous mediator of inflammation. These conclusions were based on the demonstrated ability of UVR-desensitized mice to undergo an acute-phase response after exposure to a systemically administered inflammatory agent (LPS). In a reciprocal manner, LPS-desensitized mice were found to elicit a normal acute-phase response after a single UVR exposure. In addition, both UVR- and LPS-desensitized mice were found to respond normally to the systemic administration of an exogenous source of semi-purified IL 1. Desensitization to the inflammatory properties of either UVR or LPS appears to be controlled at the site of interaction between the tissues capable of producing epidermal-derived thymocyte-activating factor (ETAF)/IL 1 (epidermal keratinocytes or reticuloendothelial cells, respectively) and the exogenous inflammatory stimulus. Peritoneal macrophages obtained from LPS-desensitized mice were found to have a markedly reduced capacity to secrete ETAF/IL 1 in vitro when compared to peritoneal exudate cells (PEC) obtained from normal mice. In parallel with this decreased secretory potential by PEC was the appearance of membrane-associated forms of this mediator. Membrane-associated IL 1 was not found to be present on PEC obtained from normal mice. Keratinocytes obtained from the skin of normal mice or keratinocytes isolated from the irradiated skin site of UVR-desensitized mice were both found to secrete high levels of ETAF/IL 1 constitutively in vitro. Furthermore, both sources of keratinocytes also expressed membrane-associated forms of ETAF/IL 1 constitutively. Therefore, unlike LPS desensitization, the phenomenon of UVR desensitization does not appear to induce changes in the ability of keratinocytes to secrete soluble forms or to express membrane forms of ETAF/IL 1. UVR desensitization may be a result of the inability of ETAF/IL 1 generated within the skin to reach the various IL 1-responsive target cells throughout the body, or may result from the impaired ability of UVR to stimulate ETAF/IL 1 production due to changes in the structure of the skin of chronically UVR-exposed animals.