Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Sensitivity and subsequent “down regulation” of sensitivity induced by chlorocresol in guinea pigs

  • 24 Accesses

  • 9 Citations


Chlorocresol was shown to have great potential for contact sensitization in the guinea-pig maximization test at the Day-21 challenge; 2 weeks later, the reactivity was significantly decreased. Cyclophosphamide (250mg/kg) was interperitoneally injected and used as a modulator for the immune response. When cyclophosphamide was administered 3 days before the first challenge, the decrease in reactivity from Day 21 to Day 35 was reversed. This indicates that the reduction in sensitivity was caused by an immunologic mechanism — probably the formation of suppressor cells. This phenomenon is called the “down regulation” of sensitivity and may operate in eczema patients who have lost patch-test reactivity.

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


  1. 1.

    Andersen KE, Hamann K (1984) How sensitizing is chlorocresol? Guinea pig allergy tests versus the clinical experience. Contact Dermatitis 11:11–20

  2. 2.

    Claman HN, Miller SD, Sy M-S, Moorhead JW (1980) Suppressive mechanisms involving sensitization and tolerance in contact allergy. Immunol Rev 50:105–132

  3. 3.

    Frey JR, de Weck AL, Geleick H (1965) Course and duration of hypersensitivity and immunological tolerance to simple chemical compounds in guinea pigs. Int Arch Allergy Appl Immunol 27:370

  4. 4.

    Friedlaender MH, Baer H (1972) The role of the regional lymph node in sensitization and tolerance to simple chemicals. J Immunol 109:1122–1130

  5. 5.

    Klecak G (1983) Identification of contact allergens: predictive tests in animals. In: Marzulli FN, Maibach HI (eds) Dermatotoxicology. Hemisphere, Washington London, pp 193–236

  6. 6.

    Macher E, Chase MW (1969) Studies on the sensitization of animals with simple chemical compounds. XII. The influence of excision of allergenic depots on onset of delayed hypersensitivity and tolerance. J Exp Med 129:102–121

  7. 7.

    Magnusson B, Kligman AM (1970) Allergic contact dermatitis in the guinea pig. Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, Illinois

  8. 8.

    Maurer T (1983) Contact and photocontact allergens. Marcel Dekker, New York Basel

  9. 9.

    Mitchell JC, Maibach HI (1982) The angry back syndrome — the excited skin syndrome. Semin Dermatol 1:9–13

  10. 10.

    Parker D, Turk JL (1978) The effect of cyclophosphamide pretreatment on B-cell stimulation: dissociation of action on homocytotropic antibody and other B-cell functions. Immunol 34:115–121

  11. 11.

    Parker D, Turk JL (1982) Kinetics of the relation between suppressor and effector mechanisms in contact sensitivity in the guinea pig. Immunology 47:61–66

  12. 12.

    Parker D, Long PV, Turk JL (1983) A comparison of the conjugation of DNTB and other dinitrobenzenes with free protein radicals and their ability to sensitize or tolerize. J Invest Dermatol 81:198–201

  13. 13.

    Polak K (1980) Immunological aspects of contact sensitivity. Karger, Basel

  14. 14.

    Polak L, Rinck C (1977) Effect of the elimination of suppressor cells on the development of DNCB contact sensitivity in guinea pigs. Immunology 33:305–311

  15. 15.

    Polak L, Turk JL (1974) Reversal of immunological tolerance by cyclophosphamide through inhibition of suppressor cell activity. Nature 249:654–656

  16. 16.

    Siegel S (1956) Nonparanetric statistics for the behavioral sciences. McGraw-Hill, Kogakusha, Tokyo

  17. 17.

    Skoog ML Groth O (1979) Effect of cyclophosphamide on the cellular infiltrate in experimental allergic contact dermatitis. Int Arch Allergy Appl Immunol 60:22–28

  18. 18.

    Van der Walle HB, Waegemaekers T, Bensink T (1983) Sensitizing potential of 12di(meth)acrylates in the guinea pig. Contact Dermatitis 9:10–20

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to K. E. Andersen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Andersen, K.E. Sensitivity and subsequent “down regulation” of sensitivity induced by chlorocresol in guinea pigs. Arch Dermatol Res 277, 84–87 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00414102

Download citation

Key words

  • Chlorocresol
  • Contact allergy
  • Cyclophosphamide
  • Guinea-pig allergy
  • Suppressor cells