BACKGROUND: Human skin has the capacity to metabolise foreign chemicals (xenobiotics), but knowledge of the various enzymes involved is incomplete. A broad-based unbiased proteomics approach was used to describe the profile of xenobiotic metabolising enzymes present in human skin and hence indicate principal routes of metabolism of xenobiotic compounds. Several in vitro models of human skin have been developed for the purpose of safety assessment of chemicals. The suitability of these epidermal models for studies involving biotransformation was assessed by comparing their profiles of xenobiotic metabolising enzymes with those of human skin. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Label-free proteomic analysis of whole human skin (10 donors) was applied and analysed using custom-built PROTSIFT software. The results showed the presence of enzymes with a capacity for the metabolism of alcohols through dehydrogenation, aldehydes through dehydrogenation and oxidation, amines through oxidation, carbonyls through reduction, epoxides and carboxylesters through hydrolysis and, of many compounds, by conjugation to glutathione. Whereas protein levels of these enzymes in skin were mostly just 4-10 fold lower than those in liver and sufficient to support metabolism, the levels of cytochrome P450 enzymes were at least 300-fold lower indicating they play no significant role. Four epidermal models of human skin had profiles very similar to one another and these overlapped substantially with that of whole skin. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: The proteomics profiling approach was successful in producing a comprehensive analysis of the biotransformation characteristics of whole human skin and various in vitro skin models. The results show that skin contains a range of defined enzymes capable of metabolising different classes of chemicals. The degree of similarity of the profiles of the in vitro models indicates their suitability for epidermal toxicity testing. Overall, these results provide a rational basis for explaining the fate of xenobiotics in skin and will aid chemical safety testing programmes.
BACKGROUND:Human skin has the capacity to metabolise foreign chemicals (xenobiotics), but knowledge of the various enzymes involved is incomplete. A broad-based unbiased proteomics approach was used to describe the profile of xenobiotic metabolising enzymes present in human skin and hence indicate principal routes of metabolism of xenobiotic compounds. Several in vitro models of human skin have been developed for the purpose of safety assessment of chemicals. The suitability of these epidermal models for studies involving biotransformation was assessed by comparing their profiles of xenobiotic metabolising enzymes with those of human skin. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Label-free proteomic analysis of whole human skin (10 donors) was applied and analysed using custom-built PROTSIFT software. The results showed the presence of enzymes with a capacity for the metabolism of alcohols through dehydrogenation, aldehydes through dehydrogenation and oxidation, amines through oxidation, carbonyls through reduction, epoxides and carboxylesters through hydrolysis and, of many compounds, by conjugation to glutathione. Whereas protein levels of these enzymes in skin were mostly just 4-10 fold lower than those in liver and sufficient to support metabolism, the levels of cytochrome P450 enzymes were at least 300-fold lower indicating they play no significant role. Four epidermal models of human skin had profiles very similar to one another and these overlapped substantially with that of whole skin. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: The proteomics profiling approach was successful in producing a comprehensive analysis of the biotransformation characteristics of whole human skin and various in vitro skin models. The results show that skin contains a range of defined enzymes capable of metabolising different classes of chemicals. The degree of similarity of the profiles of the in vitro models indicates their suitability for epidermal toxicity testing. Overall, these results provide a rational basis for explaining the fate of xenobiotics in skin and will aid chemical safety testing programmes.
Authors: Marilyn J Aardema; Brenda C Barnett; Zubin Khambatta; Kerstin Reisinger; Gladys Ouedraogo-Arras; Brigitte Faquet; Anne-Claire Ginestet; Greg C Mun; Erica L Dahl; Nicola J Hewitt; Raffallea Corvi; Rodger D Curren Journal: Mutat Res Date: 2010-06-01 Impact factor: 2.433
Authors: Andrew N Hoofnagle; Jessica O Becker; Michael N Oda; Giorgio Cavigiolio; Philip Mayer; Tomas Vaisar Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2012-02-03 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: Vahitha B Abdul-Salam; John Wharton; John Cupitt; Mark Berryman; Robert J Edwards; Martin R Wilkins Journal: Circulation Date: 2010-11-01 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: T Hu; Z S Khambatta; P J Hayden; J Bolmarcich; R L Binder; M K Robinson; G J Carr; J P Tiesman; B B Jarrold; R Osborne; T D Reichling; S T Nemeth; M J Aardema Journal: Toxicol In Vitro Date: 2010-03-27 Impact factor: 3.500
Authors: Christine Götz; Roland Pfeiffer; Julia Tigges; Veronika Blatz; Christine Jäckh; Eva-Maria Freytag; Eric Fabian; Robert Landsiedel; Hans F Merk; Jean Krutmann; Robert J Edwards; Camilla Pease; Carsten Goebel; Nicola Hewitt; Ellen Fritsche Journal: Exp Dermatol Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 3.960
Authors: Farrukh Afaq; Mohammad Abu Zaid; Edward Pelle; Naghma Khan; Deeba N Syed; Mary S Matsui; Daniel Maes; Hasan Mukhtar Journal: J Invest Dermatol Date: 2009-06-18 Impact factor: 8.551
Authors: Natalie Alépée; Anthony Bahinski; Mardas Daneshian; Bart De Wever; Ellen Fritsche; Alan Goldberg; Jan Hansmann; Thomas Hartung; John Haycock; Helena Hogberg; Lisa Hoelting; Jens M Kelm; Suzanne Kadereit; Emily McVey; Robert Landsiedel; Marcel Leist; Marc Lübberstedt; Fozia Noor; Christian Pellevoisin; Dirk Petersohn; Uwe Pfannenbecker; Kerstin Reisinger; Tzutzuy Ramirez; Barbara Rothen-Rutishauser; Monika Schäfer-Korting; Katrin Zeilinger; Marie-Gabriele Zurich Journal: ALTEX Date: 2014-07-14 Impact factor: 6.043
Authors: Frances M Van Dolah; Marion G Neely; Lauren E McGeorge; Brian C Balmer; Gina M Ylitalo; Eric S Zolman; Todd Speakman; Carrie Sinclair; Nicholas M Kellar; Patricia E Rosel; Keith D Mullin; Lori H Schwacke Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-06-25 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Kathleen E Hunt; Michael J Moore; Rosalind M Rolland; Nicholas M Kellar; Ailsa J Hall; Joanna Kershaw; Stephen A Raverty; Cristina E Davis; Laura C Yeates; Deborah A Fauquier; Teresa K Rowles; Scott D Kraus Journal: Conserv Physiol Date: 2013-05-15 Impact factor: 3.079
Authors: Violetta Krajka-Kuźniak; Hanna Szaefer; Tomasz Stefański; Stanisław Sobiak; Michał Cichocki; Wanda Baer-Dubowska Journal: Cell Mol Biol Lett Date: 2014-08-29 Impact factor: 5.787
Authors: C Géniès; E L Jamin; L Debrauwer; D Zalko; E N Person; J Eilstein; S Grégoire; A Schepky; D Lange; C Ellison; A Roe; S Salhi; R Cubberley; N J Hewitt; H Rothe; M Klaric; H Duplan; C Jacques-Jamin Journal: J Appl Toxicol Date: 2018-10-21 Impact factor: 3.446