We describe a new alternative method for screening for skin irritants by using fresh intact porcine skin biopsies. Test chemicals were applied to the epidermis of the biopsies, which were then incubated for different times in tissue culture medium at 37°C and with 5% carbon dioxide. A decrease in epidermal keratinocyte RNA staining, visualised in frozen sections by using a modified methyl-green pyronine (MGP) staining procedure, was employed as a marker of irritancy. If a decrease in epidermal RNA was observed after incubation for 4 hours (strong irritant), the chemical had an MGP score of 3; if after incubation for 24 hours (moderate irritant), the MGP score was 2; and if after incubation for 48 hours (weak irritant), the MGP score was 1. If no keratinocyte cytotoxicity was observed after incubation for 48 hours, the chemical was classified as non-irritant (MGP score = 0). At least three ears were used per chemical. The average MGP score was used to classify the chemical. Based on the MGP score for 20% sodium dodecyl sulphate, chemicals classified as strong or moderate irritants by using the MGP test were grouped together as category R38 chemicals. Weak irritants or non-irritants were not classified (NC). The MGP staining correctly identified 23 of 25 skin irritants for which reference data were available.
Anon. (1988). Commission European Communities Collaborative study on relationship between in vivo primary irritation and in vitro experimental models. EC Report.
2.
DraizeJ.H., WoodardG., & CalveryH.O. (1944). Methods for the study of irritation and toxicity substances applied topically to the skin and mucous membrane. Journal of Pharmacological and Experimental Therapy82, 377–390.
3.
van de SandtJ.J.M., RuttenA.A.J.J.L., & KoëterH.B.W.M. (1993). Cutaneous toxicity testing in organ culture: neutral red uptake and reduction of tetrazolium salt. Toxicology in Vitro7, 81–86.
4.
van de SandtJ.J.M., van SchoonhovenJ., MaasW.J.M., & RuttenA.A.J.J.L. (1993). Skin organ culture as an alternative to in vivo dermatotoxicity testing. ATLA21, 443–449.
5.
BothamP.A., EarlL.K., FentemJ.H., RoguetR., & van de SandtJ.J.M., (1998). Alternative methods for skin irritation testing: the current status. ECVAM Skin Irritation Task Force Report 1. ATLA26, 195–211.
6.
HohA., MaierK., & DreherR.M. (1987–88). Multilayered keratinocyte culture used for in vitro toxicology. Molecular Toxicology1, 537–546.
7.
TrigliaD., BraaS.S., YonanC., & NaughtonG.K. (1991). In vitro toxicity of various classes of test agents using the neutral red assay on a human three-dimensional physiological skin model. In Vitro Cellular and Development Biology: Animal27, 239–244.
8.
OsborneR., & PerkinsM.A. (1994). An approach for development of alternative test methods based on mechanisms of skin irritation. Food and Chemical Toxicology32, 133–142.
9.
OsborneR., PerkinsM.A., & RobbertsD.A. (1995). Development and intralaboratory evaluation of an in vitro human cell-based test to aid ocular irritancy assessments. Fundamental and Applied Toxicology28, 139–153.
10.
BrosinA., WolfV., MattheusA., & HeiseH. (1997). Use of XTT-assay to assess the cytotoxicity of different surfactants and metal salts in human keratinocytes (HaCaT). A feasible method for in vitro testing of skin irritants. Acta Dermatology and Venereology77, 26–28.
11.
DemetruliasJ., DonnellyT., MorhennV., JesseeB., HainsworthS., CastertonP., BernhoferL., MartinK, & DeckerD. (1998). Skin2 -an in vitro human skin model: the correlation between in vivo and in vitro testing of surfactants. Experimental Dermatology7, 18–26.
12.
AugustinC., & DamourO. (1995). Pharmacotoxicological applications of an equivalent dermis: three measurements of cytotoxicity. Cell Biology and Toxicology11, 167–171.
13.
GrangsjöA., Leijon-KuligowskiA., TormaH., RoomansG.M., & LindbergM. (1996). Different pathways in irritant contact eczema? Early differences in the epidermal elemental content and expression of cytokines after application of 2 different irritants. Contact Dermatitis35, 355–360.
HoyerP.E., LyonH., JakobsenP., & AndersenA.P. (1986). Standardized methyl green-pyronine Y procedures using pure dyes. Histochemical Journal18, 90–94.
16.
SchulteE.K.W., LyonH.O., & HoyerP.E. (1992). Simultaneous quantification of DNA and RNA in tissue sections. A comparative analysis of the methyl green-pyronine technique with the gallocyanin chromalum and Feulgen procedures using image cytometry. Histochemical Journal24, 305–310.
17.
MoffittP. (1994). A methyl green-pyronine technique for demonstrating cell death in the murine tumour S180. Cell Biology International18, 305–310.
18.
RentropM., KnappB., WinterH., & SchweizerH. (1986). Aminoalkylsilane-treated glass slides as support for in situ hybridization of keratin cDNAs to frozen tissue sections under varying fixation and pretreatment conditions. Histochemical Journal18, 271–276.
19.
EEC (1988). Council Directive of 7 June 1988 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances. Official Journal of the European CommunitiesL18, 14.
20.
EEC (1991). Annex I to Council Directive 91/325/EEC of 1 March 1991 adapting to technical progress for the twelfth time Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances. Official Journal of the European CommunitiesL180, 34.
21.
OECD (1992). OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, No. 404: Acute Dermal Irritation/Corrosion.6 pp. Paris, France: OECD.
22.
BallsM., BothamP.A., BrunerL.H., & Spiel-manH. (1995). The EC/HO international validation study on alternatives to the Draize eye irritation test. Toxicology in vitro9, 871–929.
23.
ECETOC (1995). Skin irritation and corrosion: reference chemicals data bank.Brussels, Belgium: European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals.
24.
JudgeM.R., GriffithsH.A., BasketterD.A., WhiteI.R., RycroftR.J.G., & McFaddenJ.P. (1996). Variation in response of human skin to irritant challenge. Contact Dermatitis34, 115–117.
25.
McFaddenJ.P., WakelinS.H., & BasketterD.A. (1998). Acute irritation thresholds in subjects with type I–type VI skin. Contact Dermatitis38, 147–149.
26.
YorkM., GriffithsH.A., WhittleE., & BasketterD.A. (1996). Evaluation of a human patch test for the identification and classification of skin irritation potential. Contact Dermatitis34, 204–212.
27.
RobinsonM.K., PerkinsM.A., & OsborneR. (1997). Comparative studies on cultured human skin models for irritation testing. In Animal Alternatives, Welfare and Ethics (ed. van ZutphenL.F.M., & BallsM.), 1123–1134. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.
28.
BasketterD.A. (1998). Chemistry of contact allergens and irritants. American Journal of Contact Dermatitis9, 119–124.
29.
NickoloffB.J. (1998). Immunologic reaction triggered during irritant contact dermatitis. American Journal of Contact Dermatitis9, 107–110.
30.
SerupJ., & StabergB. (1987). Differentiation of allergic and irritant reactions by transepidermal water loss. Contact Dermatitis16, 129–132.
31.
PerkinsM.A., OsbourneR., & JohnsonG.R. (1996). Development of an in vitro method for skin corrosion testing. Fundamental and Applied Toxicology31, 9–18.
WahlbergJ.E., & MaibachH.I. (1980). Nonanoic acid irritation: a positive control at routine patch testing?Contact Dermatitis6, 128–130.
34.
KrawiecD.R., & GaafarS.M. (1975). A comparative study of allergic and primary irritant contact dermatitis with dinitrochlorobenzene (DNCB) in dogs. Journal of Investigative Dermatology65, 248–251.
35.
BasketterD.A., ScholesE.W., & KimberI. (1994). The performance of the local lymph node assay with chemicals identified as contact allergens in the human maximization assay. Food and Chemical Toxicology32, 543–547.
36.
NordlindK., & LidénS. (1992). Patch test reactions to metal salts in patients with oral mucosal lesions associated with amalgam restorations. Contact Dermatitis27, 157–160.
KochP., & NickolausG. (1996). Allergic contact dermatitis and mercury exanthem due to mercury chloride in plastic boots. Contact Dermatitis34, 405–409.
39.
LaineJ., KalimoK., & HapponenR.P. (1997). Contact allergy to dental restorative materials in patients with oral lichenoid lesions. Contact Dermatitis36, 141–146.
40.
SchnuchA., GeierJ., UterW., FroschP.J., LehmacherW., AbererW., AgathosM., ArnoldR., FuchsT., LaubsteinB., LischkaG., PietrzykP.M., RakoskiJ., RichterG., & RuëffF. (1997). National rates and regional differences in sensitization to allergens of the standard series. Contact Dermatitis37, 200–209.
41.
ParishW.E. (1986). Evaluation of in vitro predictive tests for irritation and allergic sensitization. Food and Chemical Toxicology24, 481–494.
42.
BasketterD.A., GerberickF., KimberI., & WillisC (1998). Toxicology of Contact Dermatitis, 180 pp. Chichester, UK: John Wiley.
