Structure—Activity Relationships for Contact Hypersensitivity

  • Martin D. Barratt
  • David A. Basketter
  • David W. Roberts


Allergic contact dermatitis is caused by chemicals. These chemicals stimulate the immune system to produce an inflammatory response in the skin, and it is this reaction which both typifies the disease and which has been used as an indicator system in traditional predictive models such as the guinea pig maximisation test (GPMT) [1]. However, since it is the chemical which is the driving force, it is reasonable to examine to what extent it is possible to relate chemical structure with the propensity to behave as a skin sensitizer.


Contact Dermatitis Allergic Contact Dermatitis Skin Sensitisation Skin Penetration Skin Permeability 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Kligman AM (1966) The identification of contact allergens by human assay. III. The maximization test: a procedure for screening and rating contact sensitizers. J Invest Dermatol 47:393–409PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Godfrey HP, Baer H, Watkins RC (1971) Delayed hypersensitivity to catechols. V. Absorption and distribution of substances related to poison ivy extracts and their relation to the induction of sensitization and tolerance. J Immunol 106:91–102PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dupuis G, Benezra C (1982) Contact dermatitis to simple chemicals: a molecular approach. Dekker, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Basketter DA, Roberts DW (1990) A quantitative structure activity/dose relationship for contact allergic potential of alkyl group transfer agents. Toxicol In Vitro 4:686–687PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Roberts DW, Williams DL (1982) The derivation of quantitative correlations between skin sensitization and physicochemical parameters for alkylating agents, and their application to experimental data for sultones. J Theoret Biol 99:807–825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goodwin B, Roberts DW (1986) Structure activity relationships in allergic contact dermatitis. Food Chem Toxicol 24:795–798PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Barratt MD, Basketter DA, and Roberts DW (1994) Skin sensitization structure activity relationships for phenyl benzoates. Toxicol In Vitro 8:823–826PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Basketter DA, Roberts DW, Cronin M, Scholes EW (1992) The value of the local lymph node assay in quantitative structure activity investigations. Contact Dermatitis 27:137–142PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Flynn GL (1990) Physicochemical determinants of skin absorption. In: Gerrity TR, Henry CI (eds) Principles of route-to-route extrapolation for risk assessment. Elsevier, New York, pp 93–127Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Konemann H (1981) Quantitative structure-activity relationships in fish toxicity studies: Part 1. Relationships for 50 industrial pollutants. Toxicology 19:209–221PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Basketter DA, Gerberick GF, Kimber I, and Loveless SE (1996) The local lymph node assay - a viable alternative to currently accepted skin sensitization tests. Food Chem Toxicol (in press)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wahlberg IE, Boman A (1985) Guinea pig maximization test. Curr Probl Dermatol 14:59–106PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Robinson MK, Nusair TL, Fletcher ER, Ritz HL (1990) A review of the Buehler guinea pig skin sensitisation test and its use in a risk assessment process for human skin sensitization. Toxicology 61:91–107PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Botham PA, Basketter DA, Maurer T, Mueller D, Potokar M, Bontinck W (1991) Skin sensitisation - a critical review of predictive test methods in animals and man. Food Chem Toxicol 29:275–286PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Andersen KE, Lund AV, Frankild S (1996) The guinea pig maximization test with a multiple dose design. Acta Derm Venereol 76:463–469Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Basketter DA, Scholes EW, Kimber I (1994) Performance of the local lymph node assay with chemicals found identified as contact allergens in the human maximisation test. Food Chem Toxicol 32:543–547PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kimber I, Basketter DA (1992) The murine local lymph node assay: a commentary on collaborative studies and new directions. Food Chem Toxicol 30:165–169PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kimber I, Basketter DA (1996) Contact sensitization; a new approach to risk assessment. Hum Ecotoxicol Risk Assessment (submitted)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Leo AJ, Hansch C (1979) Substituent constants for correlation analysis in chemistry and biology. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Goodwin BFI, Roberts DW, Williams DL, lohnson AW (1983) Skin sensitisation potential of saturated and unsaturated sultones. In: Gibson GG, Hubbard R, and Parke DV (eds) Immunotoxicology. Academic, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Roberts DW, Williams DL (1983) Sultones as by-products in anionic surfactants. Tenside Detergents 20:109–111Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bjorkner B (1984) The sensitising capacity of multi-functional acrylates in the guinea pig. Contact Dermatitis 11:236–246PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Roberts DW (1987) Structure activity relationship for skin sensitization potential of diacrylates and dimethacrylates. Contact Dermatitis 17:281–289PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Baer H, Watkins RC, Kurtz AP, Byck IS, Dawson CR (1967) Delayed hypersensitivity to catechols. 3. The relationship of side-chain length to sensitising potency of catechols chemically related to the active principles of poison ivy. I Immunol 99:307–375Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Baer H, Dawson CR, Kurtz AP (1968) Delayed contact hypersensitivity to catechols. IV Stereochemical conformation of the antigenic determinant.] Immunol 101:1243–1247Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Roberts DW, Benezra C (1993) Quantitative structure-activity relationships for skin sensitisation potential of urushiol analogues. Contact Dermatitis 29:78–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Roberts DW, Basketter DA (1990) A quantitative structure activity/dose response relationship for contact allergic potential of alkyl group transfer agents. Contact Dermatitis 23:331–335PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Franot C, Benezra C, Lepoittevin J-P (1993) Synthesis and interaction studies of 13C labelled lactone derivatives with a model protein using 13C NMR. Bioorg Med Chem 1:389–397PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Franot C, Roberts DW, Smith RG, Basketter DA, Benezra C, Lepoittevin J-P (1994) Structure activity relationships for contact allergenic potential of y,y-dimethyl- y-butyrolactone derivatives. 1. Synthesis and electrophilic reactivity studies of a-(<i)-substituted-alkyl)-y,y-dimethyl-y-butyrolactones and correlation of skin sensitization potential and cross-sensitization patterns with structure. Chem Res Toxicol 7:297–306PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Franot C, Roberts DW, Basketter DA, Benezra C, Lepoittevin J-P (1994) Structure activity relationships for contact allergenic potential of y,y-dimethyl-y-butyrolactone derivatives. 2. Quantitative structure-skin sensitization relationship for a-(ft)-substituted-alkyl)- y,y-dimethyl-y-butyrolactones. Chem Res Toxicol 7:307–312PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Loveless SE, Ladies GS, Gerberick GF, Ryan CA, Basketter DA, Scholes EW, House RV, Hilton J, Dearman RJ, Kimber I (1996) Further evaluation of the local lymph node assay in the final phase of an international collaborative trial. Toxicology 108:141–152PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Goodwin BFJ, Johnson AW (1985) Single injection adjuvant test. Curr Probl Dermatol 14:201–207PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Roberts DW, Marshall SJ (1995) Applications of hydrophobicity parameters to prediction of the acute aquatic toxicity of commercial surfactant mixtures. SAR QSAR Environ Res 4:167–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Landsteiner K, Jacobs JL (1936) Studies on the sensitization of animals with simple chemicals III. J Exp Med 64:625–639PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Roberts DW (1995) Linear free energy relationships for reactions of electrophilic halo- and pseudohalobenzenes and their application in prediction of skin sensitisation potential for SNAr electrophiles. Chem Res Toxicol 8:545–551PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Perrin DD, Dempsey B, Serjeant EP (1981) pKa prediction for organic acids and bases. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Cronin MTD, Basketter DA (1994) Multivariate QSAR analysis of a skin sensitization database, SAR and QSAR. Environ Res 2:159–179Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Magee PS, Hostynek JJ, Maibach HI (1994) A classification model for allergic contact dermatitis. Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationships 13:22–33Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sanderson DM, Earnshaw CG (1991) Computer prediction of possible toxic action from chemical structure; the DEREK system. Hum Exp Toxicol 10:261–273PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    EEC (1983) EEC Commission Directive of 29 July 1983 adapting to technical progress for the fifth time. Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances. (Annex V). Official Journal of the European Communities L257:1Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Barratt MD, Basketter DA, Chamberlain M, Admans GD, Langowski J J (1994) An expert system rulebase for identifying contact allergens. Toxicol In Vitro 8:1053–1060PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Barratt MD, Langowski J J (1997) Validation and subsequent development of the DEREK skin sensitization rulebase by analysis of the BgVV list of contact allergens, (manuscript in preparation)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Karlberg A-T (1991) Air oxidation increases the allergic potential of Tall Oil Rosin. Colophony contact allergens also identified in Tall Oil Rosin. Am J Contact Dermatitis 2:43–49Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Basketter DA (1992) Skin sensitization to cinnamic alcohol: the role of skin metabolism. Acta Dermatol Venereol 72:264–265Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Potts RO, Guy R (1992) Predicting skin permeability. Pharmaceut Res 9:663–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Barratt MD (1995) Quantitative structure activity relationships for skin permeability. Toxicol In Vitro 9:27–37PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Suzuki T (1991) Development of an automated system for both partition coefficient and aqueous solubility. J Computer-Aided Mol Design 5:149–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Hinz RS, Lorence CR, Hodson CD, Hansch C, Hall LL, Guy RH (1991) Percutaneous penetration of para-substituted phenols in vitro. Fundam Appl Toxicol 17:575–583PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Ashby J, Hilton J, Dearman RJ, Callander RD, Kimber I (1993) Mechanistic relationship among mutagenicity, skin sensitization and skin carcinogenicity. Environ Health Perspect 101:62–67PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Ashby J, Hilton J, Dearman RJ, Kimber I (1995) Streptozotocin: inherent but not expressed skin sensitizing activity. Contact Dermatitis 33:165–167PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    EU (1993) Council Directive 92/32/EEC. 7th Amendment to Directive 67/548/EEC. Official Journal of the European Communities 35, LI54Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Barratt MD, Basketter DA (1994) Structure-activity relationships for skin sensitization: an expert system. In: Rougier A, Goldberg AM, Maibach HI (eds) In vitro toxicology. Liebert, New York, pp 293–301Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Basketter DA, Scholes EW, Chamberlain M, Barratt MD (1995) An alternative strategy to the use of guinea pigs for the identification of skin sensitization hazard. Food Chem Toxicol 33:1051–1056PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Kimber I, Basketter DA, Briatico-Vangosa G, Cookman G, Evans P, Loveless S, Pauluhn I (1997) ECETOC Technical Report. Skin and Respiratory Sensitisers, Reference Chemicals Data Bank 1997Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Angelini G, Foti C, Rigano L, Vena GA (1995) 3-Dimethylaminopropylamine: a key substance in contact allergy to cocamidopropylbetaine? Contact Dermatitis 32:96–99Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Kimber I, Dearman RJ, Scholes EW, Basketter DA (1994) The local lymph node assay: developments and applications. Toxicology 93:13–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin D. Barratt
  • David A. Basketter
  • David W. Roberts

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations