Literature DB >> 23872582

Utility of rat liver S9 fractions to study skin-sensitizing prohaptens in a modified KeratinoSens assay.

Andreas Natsch1, Tina Haupt.   

Abstract

Prohaptens are chemicals, which may cause skin sensitization after being converted into electrophilic molecules by skin enzymes. Aroclor-induced rat liver S9 fractions represent the metabolic activation system most commonly used in in vitro toxicology. This system contains much higher enzyme activities compared with those reported in skin, but it may still serve as a surrogate system to study the potential of chemicals to act as prohaptens. To test this concept, the luciferase induction in KeratinoSens reporter cells treated with chemicals in presence and absence of S9 fractions was measured. Suspected prohaptens such as methyl isoeugenol, eugenol, or trans-anethole gave no, or only weak, ge ne induction in absence of S9 fractions, and a significantly enhanced luciferase induction in presence of S9, proving their prohapten status. Direct-acting haptens like 2,4-dinitrochlorobenzene or cinnamic aldehyde gave a reduced response in presence of S9. We evaluated whether this metabolic activation assay might be implemented in a tiered screening strategy to counter-screen negatives in the KeratinoSens assay to enhance sensitivity. To this aim, all chemicals classified negative were retested with this activation step. Among the 77 chemicals found as correct-negatives, 73 were also negative in presence of metabolic activation, thus this counterscreen would reduce specificity only slightly. However, this comprehensive screening showed that only a small fraction of the known skin sensitizers need activation by the S9 system. Therefore, the KeratinoSens-S9 assay appears useful for the in vitro evaluation of specific classes of potential prohaptens and to mechanistically rationalize their prohapten status.

Entities:  

Keywords:  S9 fractions; in vitro testing; nuclear factor-erythroid 2-related factor 2.; prohaptens; reporter gene; skin sensitization

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23872582     DOI: 10.1093/toxsci/kft160

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Toxicol Sci        ISSN: 1096-0929            Impact factor:   4.849


  3 in total

1.  Skin sensitization in silico protocol.

Authors:  Candice Johnson; Ernst Ahlberg; Lennart T Anger; Lisa Beilke; Romualdo Benigni; Joel Bercu; Sol Bobst; David Bower; Alessandro Brigo; Sarah Campbell; Mark T D Cronin; Ian Crooks; Kevin P Cross; Tatyana Doktorova; Thomas Exner; David Faulkner; Ian M Fearon; Markus Fehr; Shayne C Gad; Véronique Gervais; Amanda Giddings; Susanne Glowienke; Barry Hardy; Catrin Hasselgren; Jedd Hillegass; Robert Jolly; Eckart Krupp; Liat Lomnitski; Jason Magby; Jordi Mestres; Lawrence Milchak; Scott Miller; Wolfgang Muster; Louise Neilson; Rahul Parakhia; Alexis Parenty; Patricia Parris; Alexandre Paulino; Ana Theresa Paulino; David W Roberts; Harald Schlecker; Reinhard Stidl; Diana Suarez-Rodrigez; David T Szabo; Raymond R Tice; Daniel Urbisch; Anna Vuorinen; Brian Wall; Thibaud Weiler; Angela T White; Jessica Whritenour; Joerg Wichard; David Woolley; Craig Zwickl; Glenn J Myatt
Journal:  Regul Toxicol Pharmacol       Date:  2020-07-01       Impact factor: 3.271

2.  Integrated decision strategies for skin sensitization hazard.

Authors:  Judy Strickland; Qingda Zang; Nicole Kleinstreuer; Michael Paris; David M Lehmann; Neepa Choksi; Joanna Matheson; Abigail Jacobs; Anna Lowit; David Allen; Warren Casey
Journal:  J Appl Toxicol       Date:  2016-02-06       Impact factor: 3.446

Review 3.  [Toxicological risk assessment using the example of potential contact sensitization to resorcinol].

Authors:  C Goebel; M Kock; H Merk
Journal:  Hautarzt       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 0.751

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.