Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

W E Parish

Publications and source records attributed to W E Parish.

57 records · Page 4Linked to original sources

Evaluation of in vitro predictive tests for irritation and allergic sensitization.

Investigations of in vitro procedures to predict the potential of substances as skin irritants and as allergens inducing delayed hypersensitivity (contact dermatitis) are described, with indications of possible advances and known limitations. The examination of keratome slices of skin for release of enzymes, for changed histochemistry and for utilization of radioisotope-labelled amino acids will detect weak irritants but is of doubtful value for moderate irritants and will detect corrosive substances only through their inhibition of all cell activities. Fibroblast cultures, tested with Clostridium perfringens toxin and chemicals, show similar limitations in detecting moderate or severe irritants. Fibroblast cultures can be made more relevant to epidermal exposure by an overlying layer of agar containing keratin. In vitro tests to detect induction of sensitizing potential for delayed hypersensitivity have made little progress. The most promising approach is to treat antigen-presenting Langerhans cells with antigen and co-culture with lymphocytes. The lymphocytes may be examined for changes in receptor expression, for synthesis of interleukin 2, and possibly for responses to allergen if sufficient cells become specifically sensitized. There are several in vitro techniques to detect responses of in vivo- or in vitro-sensitized lymphocytes treated with antigen.

Allergens↗

The chorioallantoic membrane in irritation testing.

The chorioallantoic membrane (CAM) of the chick embryo is a fusion membrane with a blood vessel complex. It was examined as a possible means of predicting the irritant potential of chemicals for the conjunctiva, as observed in the Draize eye test. Nine chemicals of known irritancy potential for the eye in vivo were selected from published data, and each was tested at four different concentrations. The treated CAMs were examined macroscopically at 4, 24 and 48 hr after treatment, and were then prepared for histological examination. A dose response was observed for each chemical. In only four of the nine chemicals could the response in the CAM be considered to predict the in vivo activity. In another two, the correlation was poor. Three chemicals, glycerine, polyethylene glycol and Tween 80, all reported to be harmless to the eye, were embryotoxic at more than one concentration. Histological changes were degeneration or necrosis at the treated site without the chemical features of heterophil (chicken neutrophil) infiltration or significant macrophage infiltration. It is concluded that the CAM is not a suitable tissue for predicting in vivo irritant potential of substances for the conjunctiva, and that it provides no more information than could be obtained from cell cultures.

Allantois↗