Skip to main content

Use of Contact Hypersensitivity in Immunotoxicity Testing

  • Protocol
  • First Online:
Immunotoxicity Testing

Part of the book series: Methods in Molecular Biology™ ((MIMB,volume 598))

Abstract

The histopathological examination of lymphoid organs together with a T-dependent antibody (TDAR) assay are the primary components of preclinical immunotoxicity assessment. Additional testing including measurement of cellular immunity may be considered. Besides ex vivo lymphocyte proliferation assays, either delayed or contact hypersensitivity models can be used. Contact hypersensitivity testing is typically performed either in mice or in guinea pigs and is directly derived from classical models used for the detection of contact sensitizing chemicals. Whatever the selected model, it is comprised of a sensitizing phase where the animals are applied a strong contact sensitizer topically, then a rest phase, and finally an eliciting phase where sensitized animals are challenged topically with the same contact sensitizer.

In mice, the ear-swelling test is the reference procedure in which mice are sensitized to the ear or shaved abdominal skin and then challenged on the ear. Ear swelling usually measured from ear thickness reflects a cell-mediated immune response. In guinea pigs, a strong sensitizer is applied on the shaved skin of the abdomen or the interscapular area. The sensitized animals are challenged on another area of the shaved abdomen, and the cell-mediated response is assessed semiquantitatively from the magnitude of induced erythema inconsistently associated with edema. Treatment or exposure with immunosuppressive chemicals can result in a significantly decreased ear swelling or skin reaction. Contact hypersensitivity models are seldom used nowadays in preclinical immunotoxicity testing, most likely because of the lack of standardization and extensive validation as well as their use being restricted to mice or guinea pigs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Protocol
USD 49.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Descotes J (2006) Methods of evaluating immunotoxicity. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 2:249–259

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kimber I, Maurer T (1996) Toxicology of contact hypersensitivity. Taylor & Francis, London

    Google Scholar 

  3. Benacerraf B, Gell PG (1959) Studies on hypersensitivity. III. The relation between delayed reactivity to the picryl group of conjugates and contact sensitivity. Immunology 2:219–229

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Krasteva M, Kehren J, Ducluzeau MT, Sayag M, Cacciapuoti M, Akiba H, Descotes J, Nicolas JF (1999) Contact dermatitis. I. Pathophysiology of contact sensitivity. Eur J Dermatol 9:65–77

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Jacobsen C (1975) Trinitrophenylation of the bilirubin binding site of human serum albumin. Int J Pept Protein Res 7:161–165

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kripke ML, Munn CG, Jeevan A, Tang JM, Bucana C (1990) Evidence that cutaneous antigen-presenting cells migrate to regional lymph nodes during contact sensitization. J Immunol 145:2833–2838

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Shelley WB, Juhlin L (1977) Selective uptake of contact allergens by the Langerhans cell. Arch Dermatol 113:187–192

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bacci S, Alard P, Dai R, Nakamura T, Streilein JW (1997) High and low doses of haptens dictate whether dermal or epidermal antigen-presenting cells promote contact hypersensitivity. Eur J Immunol 27:442–448

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gerberick GF, Ryan CA, Dearman RJ, Kimber I (2007) Local lymph node assay (LLNA) for detection of sensitization capacity of chemicals. Methods 41:54–60

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Asherson GL, Ptak W (1968) Contact and delayed hypersensitivity in the mouse. I. Active sensitization and passive transfer. Immunology 15:405–416

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Phanuphak P, Moorhead JW, Claman HN (1974) Tolerance and contact sensitivity to DNFB in mice. I. In vivo detection by ear swelling and correlation with in vitro cell stimulation. J Immunol 112:115–123

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Roupe G, Ridell B (1979) The cellular infiltrate in contact hypersensitivity to picryl chloride in the mouse. Acta Derm Venereol 59:191–195

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Cho GY, Hough W (1986) Time course of contact hypersensitivity to DNFB and histologic findings in mice. J Korean Med Sci 1:31–36

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Descotes J, Tedone R, Evreux JC (1985) Immunotoxicity screening of drugs and chemicals: value of contact hypersensitivity to picryl chloride in the mouse. Methods Find Exp Clin Pharmacol 7:303–305

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Descotes J, Evreux JC (1981) Depressant effects of major tranquillizers on contact hypersensitivity to picryl chloride in the mouse. Experientia 37:1004–1005

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bäck O, Larsen A (1982) Contact sensitivity in mice evaluated by means of ear swelling and a radiometric test. J Invest Dermatol 78:309–312

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Goto Y, Inoue Y, Tsuchiya M, Isobe M, Ueno H, Uchi H, Furue M, Hayashi H (2000) Suppressive effect of topically applied CX-659S, a novel diaminouracil derivative, on the contact hypersensitivity reactionb in various animal models. Int Arch Allergy Immunol 123:341–348

    Google Scholar 

  18. Laschi-Loquerie A, Descotes J, Tachon P, Evreux JC (1984) Influence of lead acetate on hypersensitivity. Experimental study. J Immunopharmacol 6:87–93

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Descotes J, Tedone R, Evreux JC (1988) Enhancement of antibody response and delayed-type hypersensitivity by thalidomide in mice. Fundam Clin Pharmacol 2:493–497

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Blaylock BL, Kouchi Y, Comment CE, Pollock PL, Luster MI (1993) Topical application of T-2 toxin inhibits the contact hypersensitivity response in BALB/c mice. J Immunol 150:5135–5143

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Blaylock BL, Newsom KK, Holladay SD, Shipp BK, Bartow TA, Mehendale HM (1995) Topical exposure to chlordane reduces the contact hypersensitivity response to oxazolone in BALB/c mice. Toxicol Lett 81:205–211

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Singh P, Morris B, Zhao S, Blaylock BL (2002) Suppression of the contact hypersensitivity response following topical exposure to 2-butoxyethanol in female BALB/c mice. Int J Toxicol 21:107–114

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Belsito DV, Kerdel FA, Potozkin J, Soter NA (1990) Cimetidine-induced augmen­tation of allergic contact hypersensitivity reactions in mice. J Invest Dermatol 94:441–445

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Zeligman I (1954) Experimental contact dermatitis. I. Dinitrochlorobenzene contact dermatitis in guinea pigs. J Invest Dermatol 22:109–120

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Maguire HC Jr, Maibach HI (1961) Effect of cyclophosphoramide, 6-mercaptopurine, actinomycin D and vincaleukoblastine on the acquisition of delayed hypersensitivity (DNCB contact dermatitis) in the guinea-pig. J Invest Dermatol 37:427–431

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Descotes J, Evreux JC (1982) Effect of chlorpromazine on contact hypersensitivity to DNCB in the guinea-pig. J Neuroimmunol 2(1):21–25

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Nakagawa S, Oka D, Jinno Y, Takei Y, Bang D, Ueki H (1988) Topical application of cyclosporine on guinea pig allergic contact dermatitis. Arch Dermatol 124:907–910

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Luster MI, Dean JH, Boorman GA (1982) Cell-mediated immunity and its application in toxicology. Environ Health Perspect 43:31–36

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jacques Descotes .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Humana Press, a part of Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this protocol

Cite this protocol

Descotes, J. (2010). Use of Contact Hypersensitivity in Immunotoxicity Testing. In: Dietert, R. (eds) Immunotoxicity Testing. Methods in Molecular Biology™, vol 598. Humana Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-60761-401-2_17

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-60761-401-2_17

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Humana Press

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-60761-400-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-60761-401-2

  • eBook Packages: Springer Protocols

Publish with us

Policies and ethics