Use of an Ex Vivo Local Lymph Node Assay to Assess Contact Hypersensitivity Potential

Local lymph node assay: 5-bromo-d-deoxyuridine-ELISA method for comparative study in assessing chemical potencies and skin sensitization in BALB/c and CBA/J strains

Local lymph node assay (LLNA) is a predictive in vivo method to provide estimates of relative potency and to contribute to risk assessment/risk management regarding skin sensitizing potency of chemicals and formulations as a stand-alone alternative test. In addition, LLNA is relatively rapid and cost-effective compared to the Buehler method (Guinea pig test), and confers important animal welfare benefits. CBA/J and BALB/c strains are widely commercially available and have been evaluated by formal LLNA validation studies. However, the LLNA method using BrdU with ELISA, unlike other LLNA methods (OECD TG 429, 442 A, 442B), has not been previously validated. Therefore, in this study a validation method was performed to evaluate if the LLNA:BrdU-ELISA method could also be used to identify sensitizers among chemicals listed in OECD TG 429 using CBA/J and BALB/c strains. Here, we newly found that the LLNA:BrdU-ELISA validation method correctly identified 12 of 13 sensitizers in the BALB/c, 11 of 13 sensitizers in the CBA/J, and 3 of 5 non-sensitizers were identified in the two strains. Collectively, we found that the results of LLNA:BrdU-ELISA method provide a similar level of performance for accuracy and sensitivity in two mouse strains BALB/c and CBA/J.

•

LLNA:BrdU-ELISA validation method correctly identified sensitizers and non-sensitizers in OECD TG 429 in both strains.

•

We newly found that the LLNA:BrdU-ELISA validation method correctly identified sensitizers and non-sensitizers in both BALB/c and CBA/J strains.

Utilization of the Ex Vivo LLNA

Dermal exposure to chemicals may result in allergic or irritant contact dermatitis. In this study, we performed ex vivo local lymph node assay: bromodeoxyuridine-enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (LLNA: BrdU-ELISA) to compare the differences between irritation and sensitization potency of some chemicals in terms of the 3 end points: lymphocyte proliferation, cytokine profiles (interleukin 2 [IL-2], interferon-γ (IFN-γ), IL-4, IL-5, IL-1, and tumor necrosis factor α [TNF-α]), and ear swelling. Different concentrations of the following well-known sensitizers and irritant chemicals were applied to mice: dinitrochlorobenzene, eugenol, isoeugenol, sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS), and croton oil. According to the lymph node results; the auricular lymph node weights and lymph node cell counts increased after application of both sensitizers and irritants in high concentrations. On the other hand, according to lymph node cell proliferation results, there was a 3-fold increase in proliferation of lymph node cells (stimulation index) for sensitizer chemicals and SLS in the applied concentrations; however, there was not a 3-fold increase for croton oil and negative control. The SLS gave a false-positive response. Cytokine analysis demonstrated that 4 cytokines including IL-2, IFN-γ, IL-4, and IL-5 were released in lymph node cell cultures, with a clear dose trend for sensitizers whereas only TNF-α was released in response to irritants. Taken together, our results suggest that the ex vivo LLNA: BrdU-ELISA method can be useful for discriminating irritants and allergens.

Contact and respiratory sensitizers can be identified by cytokine profiles following inhalation exposure

There are currently no validated animal models that can identify low molecular weight (LMW) respiratory sensitizers. The Local Lymph Node Assay (LLNA) is a validated animal model developed to detect contact sensitizers using skin exposure, but all LMW respiratory sensitizers tested so far were also positive in this assay. Discrimination between contact and respiratory sensitizers can be achieved by the assessment of cytokine profiles. In a LLNA using the inhalation route, both contact and respiratory sensitizers enhanced proliferation in the draining lymph nodes. The question was if their cytokine profiles were affected by the route of exposure. Male BALB/c mice were exposed head/nose-only during 3 consecutive days to the respiratory sensitizers trimellitic anhydride, phthalic anhydride, toluene diisocyanate, hexamethylene diisocyanate (HDI), and isophorone diisocyanate; the contact sensitizers dinitrochlorobenzene (DNCB), oxazolone (OXA) and formaldehyde (FA), and the irritant methyl salicylate (MS). Three days after the last exposure the draining lymph nodes were excised and cytokine production was measured after ex vivo stimulation with Concanavalin A. Skin application was used as a positive control. After inhalation exposure the respiratory sensitizers induced more interleukin-4 (IL-4) and interleukin (IL-10) compared to the contact sensitizers, whereas the contact sensitizers, except formaldehyde, induced relatively more interferon-gamma (IFN-gamma) production. When IL-4 and IFN-gamma were plotted as a function of the proliferative response, it was shown that IL-4 could be used to identify respiratory sensitizers, except HDI, at concentration levels inducing intermediate stimulation indices. HDI could be distinguished from DNCB and OXA at high SI values. In contrast, contact sensitizers could only be identified when IFN-gamma was measured at high stimulation indices. The skin positive control, tested at high concentrations, showed comparable results for IL-4 and IL-10, whereas IFN-gamma levels could not be used to discriminate between respiratory and contact sensitizers. The contact sensitizer FA and the irritant MS did not induce significant cytokine production after inhalation and skin exposure. In conclusion, the respiratory LLNA is able to identify and distinguish strong contact and respiratory sensitizers when simultaneously proliferation and cytokine production are assessed in the upper respiratory tract draining LNs.