Learn D B, Beasley D G, Giddens L D, Beard J, Stanfield J W, Roberts L K
Advanced Product Research Laboratory, Schering-Plough HealthCare Products, Memphis, TN 38151-001, USA.
Photochem Photobiol. 1995 Dec;62(6):1066-75. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-1097.1995.tb02410.x.
Many photo immunological studies have used UV radiation sources that emit nonsolar UV spectral energy and UV doses based on nonimmunological endpoints, e.g. erythema and skin edema. Interpretation of these data has led to misunderstanding when extrapolated to hypothetical effects in humans exposed to solar UV. The purpose of this study was to: (1) establish UV dose response relationships for murine skin edema and immunosuppression, and (2) determine how different UV spectra affect these relationships. Back skin and ear minimum edema doses (MEdD) for Kodacel-filtered FS20 sunlamp UV (290-400 nm) were greater than two-fold higher than those for unfiltered FS20 sunlamp UV (250-400 nm). Xenon are solar simulator UV (295-400 nm) MEdD were > 10-fold higher than those for unfiltered sunlamp UV. Back skin and ear MEdD differed two- to five-fold between C3H/HeN, SWR/J and HRA/Skh-1 mice. The minimum immunosuppression doses (MISD) in C3H mice showed similar UV source spectrum dependence. The solar simulator UV MISD was 5.4- and 1.5-fold higher than for unfiltered and Kodacel-filtered sunlamp UV MISD, respectively. Furthermore, MISD were from 3- to 50-fold higher than the MEdD for the three UV sources. The UV bioeffectiveness spectra indicated that UVC energy (250-290 nm) contributed 12% and 18%, respectively, of the total skin edema and immunosuppression UV energy. These data demonstrate the variability in UV sensitivity among mouse strains, the significant differences between murine MEdD and MISD and how these differences are influenced by nonsolar regions (below 295 nm) of the UV spectrum.
许多光免疫学研究使用的紫外线辐射源发出的是非太阳紫外线光谱能量,且紫外线剂量基于非免疫终点,如红斑和皮肤水肿。当将这些数据外推至暴露于太阳紫外线的人类的假设效应时,对这些数据的解读导致了误解。本研究的目的是:(1)建立小鼠皮肤水肿和免疫抑制的紫外线剂量反应关系,以及(2)确定不同的紫外线光谱如何影响这些关系。柯达滤光片过滤的FS20太阳灯紫外线(290 - 400纳米)对背部皮肤和耳部的最小水肿剂量(MEdD)比未过滤的FS20太阳灯紫外线(250 - 400纳米)高出两倍以上。氙气太阳模拟器紫外线(295 - 400纳米)的MEdD比未过滤的太阳灯紫外线高出10倍以上。C3H/HeN、SWR/J和HRA/Skh - 1小鼠的背部皮肤和耳部MEdD相差两到五倍。C3H小鼠的最小免疫抑制剂量(MISD)表现出类似的紫外线源光谱依赖性。太阳模拟器紫外线的MISD分别比未过滤和柯达滤光片过滤的太阳灯紫外线MISD高5.4倍和1.5倍。此外,三种紫外线源的MISD比MEdD高3至50倍。紫外线生物有效性光谱表明,UVC能量(250 - 290纳米)分别占皮肤水肿和免疫抑制总紫外线能量的12%和18%。这些数据证明了小鼠品系之间紫外线敏感性的变异性、小鼠MEdD和MISD之间的显著差异,以及紫外线光谱的非太阳区域(低于295纳米)如何影响这些差异。