Fragrances pp 166-174 | Cite as

The Value of Animal Assays and the Quenching Phenomenon

  • D. Basketter
Conference paper


In the absence of in vitro models for the identification of skin sensitizers and for estimation of their potency, animal models still provide the foundation for risk assessment in this area of toxicology. In this chapter, the most commonly used models are briefly described, particularly with respect to their use in defining the potency of a particular skin sensitizer. The important points are demonstrated by a consideration of sensitizing fragrance ingredients and the quenching phenomenon.


Contact Dermatitis None None Allergic Contact Dermatitis Skin Sensitizer Contact Allergy 
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. Andersen KE, Maibach HI (1985) Guinea pig sensitization assays: an overview. In: Andersen KE, Maibach HI (eds) Contact allergy predictive tests in guinea pigs. Current problems in dermatology, vol 14. Karger, New York, pp 59–106Google Scholar
  2. Basketter DA (1994) Guinea pig predictive tests for contact hypersensitivity. In: Dean J, Munson AE, Luster M, Kimber I (eds) Immunotoxicology and immunopharmacology. Raven, New York, pp 693–702Google Scholar
  3. Basketter DA (1997) Current trends in the assessment of contact sensitizing potential. Toxicology (submitted)Google Scholar
  4. Basketter DA, Allenby CF (1991) The quenching of contact hypersensitivity reactions. Contact Dermatitis 25:160–171PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Basketter DA, Chamberlain M (1995) The validation of skin sensitization assays. Food Chem Toxicol 33:1057–1059PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Basketter DA, Gerberick GF (1996) Interlaboratory evaluation of the Buehler test. Contact Dermatitis 35:146–151PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Basketter DA, Scholes EW (1992) A comparison of the local lymph node assay with the guinea pig maximisation test for the detection of a range of contact allergens. Food Chem Toxicol 30:65–69PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Basketter DA, Roberts DW, Cronin M, Scholes EW (1992a) The value of the local lymph node assay in quantitative structure activity investigations. Contact Dermatitis 27: 137–142PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Basketter DA, Scholes EW, Evans CD, Kimber I (1992b) Divergent responses to sulphanilic acid in the guinea pig maximization test and the local lymph node assay. Contact Dermatitis 27:209–213PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Basketter DA, Scholes EW, Kimber I (1994) Performance of the local lymph node assay with chemicals identified as contact allergens in the human maximisation test. Food Chem Toxicol 32:543–547PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Basketter DA, Cookman G, Gerberick GF, Hamaide N, Potokar M (1997) The identification of skin sensitization thresholds — a review. Food Chem Toxicol 35:417–425PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Basketter DA, Gerberick GF, Kimber I, Loveless SE (1996b) The local lymph node assay — a viable alternative to currently accepted skin sensitization tests. Food Chem Toxicol 34:985–997PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Basketter DA, Gerberick GF, Robinson M (1996c) Risk assessment. In: Kimber I, Maurer T (eds) The toxicology of contact hypersensitivity. Taylor and Francis, London, pp 152–164Google Scholar
  14. Botham PA, Basketter DA, Maurer T, Mueller D, Potokar M, Bontinck W (1991) Skin sensitization — a critical review of predictive test methods in animals and man. Food Chem Toxicol 29:275–286PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Boman A (1985) Guinea pig maximisation test. In Andersen KE, Maibach HI (eds) Current problems in dermatology, vol 14. Karger, New York, pp. 59–106Google Scholar
  16. Buehler EV (1965) Delayed contact hypersensitivity in the guinea pig. Arch Dermatol 91:171–177PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Buehler EV (1985) A rationale for the selection of occlusion to induce and elicit delayed contact hypersensitivity in the guinea pig. In: Andersen KE, Maibach HI (eds) Current problems in dermatology, vol 14. Karger, New York, pp 39–58Google Scholar
  18. Chamberlain M, Basketter DA (1996) The local lymph node assay: status of validation. Food Chem Toxicol 34:999–1002PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. European Commission (1992) Annex V to the Dangerous Substances Directive 92/32/EC, ie Annex to the European Commission Directive 92/69/EEC of 31 July 1992 adapting to technical progress for the seventeenth time Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the Approximation of the Laws, Regulations and Administrative Provisions relating to the Classification, Packaging and Labelling of Dangerous Substances. Official Journal of the European Communities 35:L383AGoogle Scholar
  20. European Commission (1993) Annex IV to Commission Directive 93/21/EEC of 27 April 1993 adapting to technical progress for the 18th time Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances. Official Journal of the European Communities 36:59Google Scholar
  21. Dooms-Goossens A (1976) The effect of perfume ageing on the allergenicity of individual perfume ingredients. Contact Dermatitis 2:155–159PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Frankild S, Basketter DA, Andersen KE (1996) The value and limitation of rechallenge in the guinea pig maximisation test. Contact Dermatitis 35:135–140PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hanau D, Groshans E, Barbier P, Benezra C (1983) The influence of limonene on induced delayed hypersensitivity to citral in guinea pigs. Acta Dermatitis Venereol 63:1–7Google Scholar
  24. Hilton J, Evans CD, Lees D, Hall TJ (1991) Assessment of the relative skin sensitizing potency of 3 biocides using the murine local lymph node assay. Contact Dermatitis 25:172–177PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hilton J, Dearman RJ, Gerberick GF, Ryan CA, Basketter DA, Scholes EW, Ladies, GS, Loveless SE, House RV, Guy A (1995) An international evaluation of the local lymph node assay and comparison of modified procedures. Toxicology 103:63–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Johansen JD, Menne T (1995) The fragrance mix and its constituents: a 14 year material. Contact Dermatitis 32:18–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Johansen JD, Andersen KE, Menne T (1996) Quantitative aspects of isoeugenol contact allergy assessed by use and patch tests. Contact Dermatitis 34:414–418PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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
  29. Kligman AM, Basketter DA (1995) A critical commentary and updating of the guinea pig maximisation test. Contact Dermatitis 32:129–134PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kimber I, Basketter DA (1997) Contact sensitization: A new approach to risk assessment. Hum Ecotoxicol Risk Assessment (in press)Google Scholar
  31. Kimber I, Dearman RJ (1991) Investigation of lymph node cell proliferation as a possible immunological correlate of contact sensitizing potential. Food Chem Toxicol 29:125–129PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kimber I, Weisenberger C (1989) A murine local lymph node assay for the identification of contact allergens. Arch Toxicol 63:274–282PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kimber I, Dearman RJ, Scholes EW, Basketter DA (1994) The local lymph node assay: developments and applications. Toxicology 93:13–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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
  35. Magnusson B, Kligman AM (1970) Allergic contact dermatitis in the guinea pig. Identification of contact allergens. Springfield, ThomasGoogle Scholar
  36. Marzulli F, Maibach HI (1980) Contact allergy predictive testing of fragrance ingredients in humans by Draize and maximization methods. J Environ Pathol Toxicol 3:235–245PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Mauer T (1983) Contact and photocontact allergens. A manual of predictive test methods. Dekker, BaselGoogle Scholar
  38. Montelius J, Wahlkvist H, Boman A, Fernstrom P, Grabergs L, Wahlberg JE (1994) Experience with the murine local lymph node assay: inability to discriminate between allergens and irritants. Contact Dermatitis 31:22–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (1993) Guideline 406: skin sensitizationGoogle Scholar
  40. Opdyke D (1976) Inhibition of sensitization reactions induced by certain aldehydes. Food Chem Toxicol 14:197–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Robinson MK, Nusair TL, Fletcher ER, Ritz HL (1990) A review of the Buehler guinea pig skin sensitization test and its use in a risk assessment process for human skin sensitization. Toxicology 61:91–107PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Safford RJ, Allenby CF, Basketter DA, Goodwin BFJ (1990) Immediate reactions to fragrance chemicals and a study of factors influencing contact urticaria to cinnamic aldehyde in humans and guinea pigs. Br J Derm. 123:595–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Scholes EW, Basketter DA, Sarll AE, Kimber I, Evans CD, Miller K, Robbins MC, Harrison PTC, Waite SJ (1992) The local lymph node assay: results of a final interlaboratory validation under field conditions. J Appl Toxicol 12:217–222PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. Basketter

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations